Door Hanger Advertisement: Write-In Joe Kopsick for U.S. House of Representatives on November 3rd, 2020 (Versions #2, #3, & #4)

Click on images, and/or open in a new tab or window, to enlarge and see in full detail

Created on July 30th and August 26th, 2020

Published on August 26th, 2020

Edited on August 29th, 2020

Advertisement: Write-In Joe Kopsick for U.S. House of Representatives on November 3rd, 2020 (Versions #2, #3, & #4)

Click on images, and/or open in a new tab or window, to enlarge and see in full detail

Images created on July 30th and August 26th, 2020

Published on August 26th, 2020

Edited on August 29th, 2020

Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law

     The title of this speech is “Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law”. This title alludes to the Roman god Janus, the two-faced god of duality, transitions, gates, beginnings and endings, passages and doorways. I make this reference because, in my study of labor policy, I have discovered that numerous false dichotomies and false choices exist, and persist, about multiple topics in labor law, which cloud the way we think about what fair and free association with unions ought to look like.

     Recently, the Supreme Court handed-down its ruling in the case of Janus v. A.F.S.C.M.E. Council 31. The plaintiff in that case - an Illinois public employee and child support specialist named Mark Janus - sued the public-sector union A.F.S.C.M.E. (the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees), as well as various departments of the Illinois state government.

     Mr. Janus and his attorneys argued that it violated his First Amendment rights to be compelled to pay what are called “fair share” dues. “Fair share” dues (also called agency fees) cover the costs of the expenses incurred by the union. These expenses include engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of workers, and administering contracts.

     According to Janus, unions are private, independent organizations which are third parties to the employer-employee relationship; and therefore, his First Amendment -recognized freedom from association ought to preclude him from being compelled to pay to fund the transmission of political speech in which the union is involved (especially as a public-sector employee who has elected not to join a union). Mr. Janus felt that he was being compelled to pay a union that didn't represent him adequately, and as a result, was being compelled to pay to fund the transmission of political speech with which he disagreed.

     Janus also argued that, as a public sector employee, the government exerted an undue influence over him as an employee. Not only is the government his employer; when the government negotiates labor disputes involving public sector unions, it negotiates disputes which involve itself. This means that there is a potential conflict of interest, and so, the government's status as a neutral arbiter is questionable.

     Janus and his supporters say that, considering that it is a matter of public policy whether public employees are hired - and whether government agencies are created or abolished (as well as when, and how) - then it stands to reason that the collective bargaining in which public sector unions engage is innately political activity, and political speech. Also, that a non-unionized worker cannot rightfully be compelled to pay the union for anything it does.

     One month ago (on June 27^th, 2018), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Janus.

     This reversed the 1977 Supreme Court decision in D. Louis Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Janus also reversed the effects of the 2016 case Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association, which allowed Abood to stand. As you may remember, that was due to a 4-to-4 deadlock, which resulted from the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, which prevented the court from coming to a majority ruling, resulting in the case's dismissal, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand.

     As a result of the Friedrichs case, the question of compulsory union dues for public sector workers was left unresolved for the subsequent two years. This allowed the continued collection of dues from non-unionized public-sector workers; essentially on the grounds that they could not logistically refuse the so-called “benefits” of union negotiation (which they, of course, do not consider to be benefits).

     To repeat, the decision in Janus reversed the decision in Abood. And what the Abood ruling did was set up a clear distinction between requiring workers to pay “fair share” fees, for the costs incurred by the union (to engage in collective bargaining, and to administer contracts), versus requiring workers to pay dues to the union to fund the transmission of political speech. This “speech” can include political activities in which the union is involved, and as far as the First Amendment is concerned, it amounts to petitioning, and, some would argue, lobbying. Under Abood, public sector employees could be compelled to pay for collective bargaining costs, but not to support the union's political speech (and any lobbying efforts it might be undertaking).

     In my opinion, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education was a wise ruling, and Janus v. A.F.S.C.M.E. was not; because the Janus decision shatters the distinction between collective bargaining costs, versus costs of political speech indirectly associated with bargaining. While it is true that collective bargaining by public sector unions is innately political activity, there are arguably some “benefits” of union negotiation which cannot logistically be refused or avoided by employees (unionized or not). Specifically, the expenses incurred by the union for engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of employees to secure and administer contracts which affect the quality of safety and health which are enjoyed equally by unionized and non-unionized employees who work at the same workplace.

     This is the so-called “free-rider problem” which many union supporters criticize; a situation in which employees who don't want to join a union, are given the benefits of collective bargaining, without being required to pay for them. To repeat, they don't think that those things actually help or benefit them; but you don't like that word, then let's just say “results”. But they might just be saying that the union doesn't help them, because they don't want to pay for it, or because they don't see how certain results of negotiation are unavoidable.

     And if they're unavoidable, then the decision in Abood was appropriate, and shouldn't have been overturned, because, as a result of Abood, for the last 41 years, public sector employees have been expected to pay “fair share” fees to compensate the union for the expenses it incurred in negotiating for those benefits.

     At worst, Janus was all wrong. At best, it solved half the problem, while allowing another problem to continue existing, and also created a new problem. What I mean by this, is that, while it was good to stop requiring public sector workers to pay to support the political speech of their union, but it was unwise to stop compelling non-unionized employees to pay fair share fees. That's because the union, as a majority union, cannot help but provide non-unionized workers with the results of the collective bargaining that the union has already engaged in on behalf of all workers at the workplace.

     The Wagner Act – the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 – requires the majority union to represent all workers in negotiations. This extends a right to private sector workers in a legal manner, what was already afforded to them by reality and reason; that is, the obligation to accept certain results of collective bargaining (like the workplace safety and health conditions they deal with every day), and to pay for it responsibly on a fee-for-service, user-fee -type model.

     The Wagner Act obligates the majority union to represent all workers. It sounds great, until you realize that it has to represent even the ones who don't pay dues, or that it has to represent people who don't want to be represented. Which could be because they hate unions, or it could be because they think the union doesn't do enough for them.

     The Wagner Act creates the free rider problem (for many, though not all, private sector workers), because it obligates the union receiving the majority vote to represent all employees (that is, all members of the collective bargaining unit, which is usually all workers at the workplace). In the private sector, the now 83-year-old Wagner Act created the free-rider problem, while Right-to-Work laws enable that problem to continue. Meanwhile, in the public sector, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's 1958 “Little Wagner Act” - which allowed city worker unions to organize – enacted Wagner Act -type majority unionism for public workers (and inspired similar reforms across the country), while the Janus decision enable that problem to continue.

     This is what I mean by public policy on collective bargaining being two-faced.

     If you think about it, the Janus decision, Right-to-Work laws, and the Wagner Act all solve half of the problem, while creating another. Right-to-Work laws and the Janus decision are symptoms of the free rider problem which the Wagner Act created in the first place. If Right-to-Work laws are a Band-Aid on the problem, then the Janus decision is like replacing the Band-Aid with a smaller Band-Aid, without the wound having gotten any smaller.

     If you look up an organization called the National Right to Work Foundation, you'll find that not only do many of these free riders not want to be free riders, some of them actually want to form their own unions. Don't you think that if people were more free to form additional unions in their workplaces, more people would join unions? Maybe then, we'd have Eisenhower-era levels of 25 to 30 percent, instead of what we have now (something like 7 to 10 percent). Sure, we'd have more so-called “yellow unions” or “business unions” (unions which are complacent with management), but we'd have more radical unions too; and also a higher number of both unions, and of dues-paying union members.

     In an article entitled “When Non-Members in a Members-Only Non-Majority Union (MONMU) Want Weingarten Rights: How High Will the Blue Eagle Fly?”, researcher C. N. o'Brien explained that, according to labor law scholar and professor Charles Morris, 5 U.S. Code S 7114 (on the representation rights and duties of unions) does not mean to make a union's representation “exclusive” in the strictest sense possible, as many people assume.

     In Section 5a of 5 U.S. Code S 7114, it states that the rights of an exclusive union representative shall not preclude employees from “being represented by an attorney or representative other than the exclusive representative of the employee's own choosing, in any grievance or appeal action”. According to Morris, the duty to bargain with representatives of employees is not limited to exclusive majority unions.

     That would mean that management would be obligated to bargain with an exclusive bargaining representative of workers, not just the exclusive bargaining representative of workers. Which means it has to bargain with any and all bargaining representatives authorized to represent workers, as long as it is exclusive. This begs the question: What does “exclusive” mean in the context of this law? Does exclusive mean that the bargaining unit is the sole representative of workers in the union; or does exclusive mean that the bargaining unit's membership is exclusive, and it is funded solely by those workers who agree to support it? Professor Charles Morris and I hope that it's the latter.

     This practice of allowing two or more unions to exist in the same workplace or bargaining unit is referred to dual unionism, minority unionism, and members-only unionism. This type of practice is a common arrangement in Japan, and in my opinion, it stands a much better chance of achieving volunteerism, competition, and just rewards for honest efforts - on the part of the union and the employee alike - than what either the Democrats or the Republicans are proposing on union law.

     Until we consider amending or repealing the Taft-Hartley Act and the Wagner Act, there will be no serious discussion of protecting workers' rights. Those rights include the right to engage in concerted activity in the workplace, to unionize, to prompt negotiation (with or without a majority of workers' support), and to engage in strikes, boycotts, solidarity actions, and many types of ordinary, voluntary activities of private sector unions which have no reason to be illegal.

     That is how we achieve the general strike; by legalizing the general strike. By repealing the Taft-Hartley Act's prohibitions on solidarity actions; secondary boycotts, solidarity strikes, secondary picketing, and even wildcat strikes. Additionally, by legalizing cooperation between various organizations engaged in boycotts and strike actions; not only unions, but cooperatives, credit unions, public interest organizations, consumer interest organizations, non-profits and charities, etc..

     While the rights of public sector workers are important, there are only 22 million of them, and the rights of some 90 million private sector workers matter too. That's why we shouldn't let the public sector Janus decision distract us from making progress with private sector unions. Fortunately, solidarity actions will be easier to do in the private sector than in the public sector, especially while anti-union administrations are in power.

     Focused cooperation between unions is less politicized in the private sector than in the public sector, because it doesn't affect public policy. Cooperation between private sector unions is therefore less controversial, because it doesn't affect as many people's lives, nor the basic way society is run. Avoiding the politicization which cooperation between public sector unions entails, will help avoid the costs associated with standing idly by while anti-union governors and presidents use the legitimate political process to get away with firing large numbers of government employees, and with appointing anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board.

     However, boycotts are not possible until we can fully boycott companies we don't like. Not just by refraining from buying from them, but by stopping the flow of our tax money to fund the easy-credit loans, financial and legal protections, privileges, subsidies, and bailouts, that help them start their businesses, keep them afloat, and rescue them after they make bad decisions.

     In addition to being legal in the first place, and full so as to preclude subsidization, another important step is to make larger, wider, and more interconnected boycotts possible. This can be done by urging divestment from business alliances which disguise themselves as Chambers of Commerce, and encouraging them to instead join into independent business alliances. Especially into business alliances which unite partner firms on the basis of a common interest in cooperative management, environmental conservation or other ecological purposes, sustainable improvement, and non-discrimination against vulnerable members of society.

     Encouraging firms to join into independent business alliances, and into networks thereof, will increase the level of cooperation between owners and workers who share similar visions of a free and fair society. This will do wonders to align the interests of workers and management, leading to reduced demand for government to negotiate their disputes for them, and potentially to a significant increase in the number of firms running on cooperative models, and as E.L.M.F.s (egalitarian labor-managed firms).

     As long as we have a market economy; then cooperative enterprises; employee stock ownership plans, freelancers' unions; and full, legal, viable boycotts; can all help play a part in supplementing efforts to recognize workers' rights which focus on activity in which unions are directly involved.

Recognizing that workers' rights need to be augmented, and making it legal and possible for a more broad cooperation to occur among pro-worker causes in the private sector, will help reduce antipathy towards unions. So will amending the Wagner Act to make M.O.N.M.U.s (Members-Only Non-Majority Unions) more common.

     Maybe when M.O.N.M.U.s are more common, a single union could charge fair share fees for negotiating on the safety and health conditions that affect the whole workplace; while multiple unions could negotiate for wages and benefits, but solely for their own members; and union political speech not directly related to the services it provides, is paid for on a purely voluntary basis, after the worker receives his money.

Originally Written on July 28^th, 2018

Delivered on July 28^th, 2018

Edited and Expanded on July 29^th and 30th, and August 1^st, 2018

Originally Published on July 30^th, 2018

"Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law"

(A new article with the same title as another article on the same topic from June 2018.

Re-written for the 2018 Bughouse Square Debates, held in Chicago on July 28^th, 2018)

The original article on which this speech was based, can be read at:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/06/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html

On Limiting the Power of Majorities to Oppress Minorities and Individuals

     One common objection to libertarianism, which comes from the right, is this: Why should people be allowed to ignore the decisions of the collective, or ignore the results of a democratic decision?

     I believe that people should be free to ignore democratic decisions, but only when the democratic body (or collective) doesn't hold up to its end of the bargain (or the contract, or social contract, union contract, Constitution, town charter, business charter, whatever the case may be).

     Libertarians do not hate democracy, we are skeptical of democracy. The same can be said of our position on unions. We have no problem with forms of democracy that are entered into voluntarily, especially if they are direct, participatory, inclusive, and if possible, unanimous.

     We feel that democracy, just like republicanism, should be part of government, but only in small doses, only if it's limited. And we feel that democracy should be limited because we worry about what is called "the tyranny of the majority"; that is, democratic decisions sometimes cause the oppression of minorities and individuals.

     That's why most Libertarians feel that something ought to limit what democracy can do. The point of a democratic republic is not that government should be able to "steal from the rich and give to the poor", instead the point is that the people should only be allowed to vote on how to allocate the resources which are voluntarily given to the government, instead of taxed away in our paychecks before we even receive them.

     The very history of America, and the Constitution, are steeped in the tradition of having democracy, but in a limited fashion. The whole reason that we have a Senate and an Electoral College is that requiring a supermajority - slightly more than 50% - reduces the risk that individuals and minorities will be oppressed as the result of the decision.

     Supermajoritarianism thus requires more consensus than a mere 50.1% approval, and requiring more than a majority protects society from the risks associated with political change occurring not only too rapidly, but in a flip-flopping manner (suppose abortion's popularity were 49.9% one year, and 50.1% the next, for example).

     Of course, protecting "minorities" begs the question: What kinds of minorities? Certainly we want to protect ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious minorities, as well as ideological minorities. But protecting the 1% minority that receives the vast majority of the new wealth created, is not our priority either, because the Libertarian Party wants to eliminate corporate welfare. So of course not all minorities deserve protection; the 1% already has protections and privileges, privileges that we want to eliminate.

     The freedom to disregard the results of a democratic election, is somewhat related to the right to challenge the results of that election. Nobody who voted Bernie Sanders in the primary was obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

     Another argument against majorities: We have juries for a reason. Some of the decisions our government is making put people's lives on the line. And when someone is in jeopardy of life and limb, we give them a jury trial. And if even one person on the jury isn't convinced that they di the crime, or that the law being applied is appropriate, they get to cause a deadlock of that jury by themselves, and a mistrial is declared. That's because the only way to guarantee that a democratic decision is fully voluntary, is to make it unanimous.

     If you're curious about the history of conflict between democracy vs. the rights of individuals and minorities, a great book to read is Dred Scott's Revenge by Judge Andrew Napolitano. He explains the "utilitarian" nature of democracy, and why he feels that utilitarian thinking led pre-Civil War Democrats to treat human beings like slaves, and utilize them as if they were tools.

     Another thing to consider: What happens when the union chosen by a majority of the workplace, is a union that is bought and paid for by the employers and management? What if there is a minority of workers who have more radical demands than the union in power?

     Wherever such a situation exists, the majority oppresses the minority, and democracy hurts workers. I'm not saying that democracy always hurts workers, I'm just saying that that's the way things are rigged, and they're that way because of federal labor laws that the Libertarian Party would like to repeal or amend (like the Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, and others).

     A "wildcat strike" is what happens when some workers go on strike without the permission of the union leader. I believe that participating in wildcat strikes should be just as easy and legal as quitting your job.

Originally Written on June 29th, 2018

Edited and Published on July 6th, 2018

Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law

The case of Janus v. A.F.S.C.M.E. Council 31 could not possibly have been named with any more poetic irony than it was. That's because Janus reveals the two-faced nature of federal labor laws, and the two-faced nature of the manner in which Democrats and Republicans talk about those laws.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in favor of the plaintiff, Illinois state employee Mark Janus, against the defendant, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. The court's decision ends compulsory "fair share" fees for public sector workers, meaning that a government employee no longer has to pay dues to the union which is obligated to represent them, if that employee does not wish to be a member of that union.

Critics of the decision argue that it turns the whole set of people on government payroll into an effective "Right to Work" system. Right to Work laws, now enforced in 28 states, prohibit "union shop" and "closed shop" union security agreements; contracts between unions and management which, respectively, require employees to join a union (union shop) or the union (closed shop).

Critics also suggest that Right to Work laws, and the Janus decision, enable "free riders" to take advantage of being represented by unions, without having to pay anything. But what critics of Janus and Right to Work laws miss, however, is that, since the Wagner Act (the National Labor Relations Act of 1935), three quarters of the states have begun to allow public sector unions to engage in collective bargaining, emulating the Wagner Act (which pertains to employees in the private sector).

The Wagner Act required all employees in a private sector workplace (or bargaining unit) to be represented by the union receiving the majority vote in a union election, in all unions affiliated with the National Labor Relations Board (which the Wagner Act created).

So 80-year-old federal labor law - the Wagner Act / N.L.R.A. of 1935, signed into law by F.D.R., a Democrat - is the reason that there are free-riding workers who receive representation but don't pay for what they receive.

Remember, "free riders" are workers whom do not consent to be represented by "their union" (which they don't pay for). Most "free riding" workers don't want to pay for those union benefits; either because they don't feel that those benefits are adequate or otherwise appropriate, or because they don't want to settle for those benefits or settle for the union in charge.

These are people who might even want to form their own union. However, the union in charge, if affiliated with the N.L.R.B., would probably appeal to the N.L.R.B., and sue the smaller union, seeking to put it out of business for "cutting in on their action" by competing against the monopoly wielded by the union which won the legal right to represent workers through winning a union election.

The notion that government is a business - and an ordinary actor that can behave anywhere nearly as fairly as an enterprise that can actually go out of business - is contributing and the misguided idea that public and private sector union policy ought to look more or less the same. It is ironic that - after progressive government entered labor policy in order to counteract the power of monopolies, bust the trusts, and ensure competition - government is now enabling the anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior of unions. But it should not come as unexpected.

The lack of a clear delineation in the law between private property and enterprises offering public accommodations, and the number of forms of public assistance to ostensibly private enterprise, only serve to further complicate this blurring of public sector collective bargaining policy together with private sector policy.

If the Janus decision seems wise, then, in my opinion, it is only because it reveals the hypocrisy of the components of the law which serves as the underlying assumption upon which the foundation of misguided labor law rests.

This is to say that it reveals the hypocrisy of the "majority unionism" (unionism by majority vote) and "compulsory unionism" (extension of union representation through legal decree) through which the Wagner Act created the problem at hand; namely, the free rider problem, which Right to Work laws and the Janus decision aim to solve, but which merely serve as bandages upon the problem.

But to say that Right to Work laws and the Janus decision serve as "bandages" is an insult to bandages; they actually create new problems on top of the old ones, adding insult to injury. Right to Work laws create new problems which weren't there before, by limiting the right of unions and businesses to freely engage in contract, and have their contracts honored by the government. Now, in the aftermath the Janus decision, the Supreme Court has taken credit for taking action, when in reality it has merely refused to redress an already existing problem; that non-consenting private sector employees in most states receive union representation which they don't think benefits them.

And that will continue to be a contentious issue, whether employees represented by a union are paying for those benefits or not.

Written on June 27th and 28th, 2018

Published on June 28th, 2018

Click the following link to read an speech for the 2018 Bughouse Debates,

which was based on this article:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/07/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html

Bob Dold, Brad Schneider, and Joe Kopsick: Comparison on 23 Issues

Created on October 11th, 2016

Published on October 12th, 2016

Edited on October 15th and 19th, 2016

Twenty-One Questions for Bob Dold and Brad Schneider

Written Between October 1^st and 16^th, 2016
Published on October 10^th, 2016
Edited and Expanded on October 20th, 2016

 

            One of some eight or nine debates between Illinois's 10^th District U.S. congressional candidates Bob Dold and Brad Schneider took place at Lake Forest High School in Lake Forest, Illinois, at 1:30 on the afternoon of Sunday, October 16^th, 2016. The debate, hosted by the Lake County League of Women Voters, was free and open to the public.

Audience members were invited to submit questions at the debate by writing them on notecards. Since, as a write-in candidate, my name is not technically on the ballot, I was not invited to the debate; however, I was there to submit questions. Since audience members were only permitted to ask several questions each, below I have listed twenty-one questions that I would like to hear the candidates answer.

 

Ninth Amendment

     I believe that the freedoms to marry, travel, work, go on strike, buy and sell, drink, smoke, vote, and defend oneself, are natural, fundamental, and inalienable rights; that they cannot be voted away by legislatures. Do you agree, or do you believe that our rights are mere privileges, which are sold or revoked at government's whim, and that we need to pay taxes on - and pay for applications, permits, and licenses for - everything we do?

Ninth Amendment
     Is there a single, unifying reason why self-defense, marriage, voting, working in an occupation, buying and selling, and traveling, should not be considered natural rights or freedoms, but rather as privileges which can be sold or denied by government, which has the exclusive authority to profit from the sale of license and permit fees?

Government's Role in Society

     What is your preferred vision of the kind of society that government has a responsibility to help create; a compulsory society, or a voluntary society? Would you prefer a compulsory society in which there is a military draft, and nearly everything we do is taxed, and may not be done without applying for a permit or license, and paying fees therefor? Or do you prefer an all-volunteer military; low barriers of entry into the professions; and a tax base relying only on voluntary contributions, user fees, and fees punishing waste?

Private Property
     What are you doing to make it easier to own a car with full exclusionary rights and access to the vehicle's Statement of Origin? What have you done to make it easier to fully own a home without being subject to neighborhood association guidelines and property taxes that disincentivize construction, growth, and useful production thereupon? What would you do to make it easier to owning landed property in full allodial title?


Separation of Powers
     How can you defend the constitutionality of federal involvement in health and education, without resorting to making excuses for the same kind of inappropriate delegation of congressional powers to the president; the kind that brought us the expansion of domestic surveillance and the size of the executive branch, in addition to the expansion of presidential war powers which led to the second invasion of Iraq?

Elections

     Which of the following is the biggest problem pertaining to campaign finance?: 1) lack of transparency in donation disclosures; 2) unlimited donations; or 3) the influence of lobbyists on expanding government, with its favors and privileges for donors and favored industries, in a way that makes such large donations typical? Also, would you support limiting your own office to four consecutive terms at a time?

Amending the Constitution

     Is there any amendment that you would like to see repealed or heavily amended; such as the 14^th, 16^th, or 17^th Amendments? Would you support a new amendment to the Constitution? Would you support voting reform, term limits, an Equal Rights Amendment, or a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Taxes and Productivity

     Do you suspect that taxing any behaviors at lower rates might yield greater revenues? Do you think that keeping tax rates too high might risk inadvertently disincentivizing the behaviors being taxed (namely earning money, buying and selling goods and services, making investments, importing goods, giving gifts, and bequeathing inheritances)? Would it be less harmful to base all government revenue on voluntary contributions; user fees; fees for mineral resource extraction; and fees penalizing waste, blight, and pollution?

Taxes and Poverty

     How is poverty best addressed? Would you support: 1) extending the Earned Income Tax Credit; 2) applying homesteading tax credits to low-cost housing; 3) establishing a citizens' dividend or sovereign wealth fund; or 4) the Negative Income Tax, giving tax payments to those below the poverty level?

Unions
     First, were things better for workers when unions engaged in strikes without the permission of a government labor relations board? Second, would it benefit workers to amend the law so that wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes, and wide-scale boycotts are legal, effective, and possible? Third and last, would you amend the Wagner Act so that unions are no longer required to represent all workers in a workplace, including those who do not consent to paying dues and do not want the benefits of representation?

Wages, Treasury, and the Budget
     Would it still be necessary to raise the minimum wage for private-sector jobs, if we had a balanced budget, a more sound currency, a greater purchasing power, and consumers' costs could be relieved directly by eliminating duties, imposts, tariffs, and sales taxes?

Taxation of Business
     When it comes to enterprise, which types of behaviors by companies should be taxed; 1) malinvestments; 2) personal income, executive bonuses, sales and profits, imports, capital gains, investments, and retirement and health accounts; or 3) pollution, waste, abuse and disuse of land, and extraction of natural resources?

Corporate Privilege
     Would you agree that it is not possible to effectively boycott companies, unless and until several types of government-granted, taxpayer-funded corporate and small business privileges and supports are either revoked or more strictly limited? Also, should multinational businesses be free to sue governments for loss of potential future profits, if those governments don't agree to do business with those companies?

Banking and Bailouts

     How is the public best insulated from the risks of Wall Street speculation, the excesses of commercial banking, and the risk of bailouts? Should Glass-Steagall be restored, should the amount of money that the F.D.I.C. can insure be lowered, is it the credit and bond rating systems that need reform, or should something else be done?

Abortion

     Should partial-birth abortion be legal, should it be publicly funded, and is it abortion or infanticide? Also, what in the Constitution gives any agent or agency of the federal government authority on matters of abortion, except when it comes to whether health insurance should cover the reproductive health needs of federal workers? Lastly, does anything about either the 9^th or the 14^th Amendment agree or conflict with your position on abortion?

Guns and the Draft
     Should the Second Amendment be modified as to recognize the natural right to refuse service in the militia; and the right to claim a moral philosophical, or religious conscientious objection to being required to render military service in person, whether as part of a draft or mandatory civil emergency preparedness service? Should women be required to register for the draft; or should mandatory draft registration end altogether, and the draft be repealed via a constitutional amendment?

Foreign Aid to Israel

The federal government sends $3.8 billion to the State of Israel each year. Considering that an IRmep/Google poll revealed last month that more than 80% of American adult internet users surveyed, thought that aid to Israel would better be spent on something else, would you consider reducing or revoking aid until the Israelis agree to end their draft, withdraw from illegally occupied territories, admit their possession of nuclear weapons, and sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Israel and Iran

   What would you say to a voter who opposes foreign aid to both the State of Israel and its majority-Muslim neighbor states, for the same reasons; women's rights violations, denial of religious freedoms, disregard of civil liberties in policing and military recruitment, and non-transparent nuclear military ambitions? Could Israel take a more merciful role in the peace process? Lastly, do you support the Iran deal, and why or why not?

Schneider's Foreign Policy

Mr. Schneider, what should be done about U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Should we stay in Iraq to fight I.S.I.S., or work with the Russians to achieve peace in Syria? Would you support the Iraq partition plan, or time-tables for withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan? Finally, should the U.S. Army be guarding Pakistan's border with India instead of its border with Afghanistan?

Dold's Inconsistencies

Congressman Dold, what would you tell a conservative or Republican voter who feels that you have flip-flopped on repealing Obamacare, and sees your commercials where you promote gun control and continuing funding for Planned Parenthood, and wonder whether there are any key issues on which you are in total agreement with conservative voters?

Rahm Emanuel

Have you met Rahm Emanuel, do you think he is a good leader, and do you think he has done anything unethical in any of his roles in government or business - such as his time as a Clinton fundraiser and adviser, on the board of Freddie Mac, in his role in the 2008 restructuring, as President Obama's Chief of Staff, or as the Mayor of Chicago - that should disqualify him from seeking higher offices?

Independent Candidate Enters Race for U.S. House

Originally Written on March 27^th, 2016

Edited on March 29^th and 30^th, and April 22nd, 2016


Thanks to Annie Dean for her helpful input

            Joseph Kopsick, a 29-year-old resident of Lake Bluff, is running as a New Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. He will be fighting to represent Illinois’s 10^th District, along with some other recognizable names. An Illinois native, Kopsick was born at Lake Forest Hospital in 1987, attended area public schools in Lake Bluff throughout his childhood, and graduated from Lake Forest High School in 2005. He majored in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, graduating with a bachelor’s in 2009. While living in Madison, Kopsick ran for the U.S. House from Wisconsin’s 2^nd District in 2012, and also ran for Oregon’s 3^rd in 2014.

Kopsick decided to move back home to Illinois after traveling around the country getting to know different kinds of people, and understanding their struggles and what they need most from their government. In a country so divided, Kopsick now feels that the battle for the House is just as important in Illinois’s 10^th as anywhere else. Kopsick declared his candidacy in November, citing a lack of diversity of opinion among the other candidates on numerous key issues. He believes that his opponents’ records do not sufficiently reflect an interest in reducing federal power, practicing a non-interventionist foreign policy, and supporting personal freedom.

            Kopsick desires to reduce the size of the federal workforce, cap spending at lower levels, and help pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. He opposes income taxes, but would accept a Negative Income Tax. He considers taxes on sales, gifts, estates, and investments as discouraging productive behavior. Kopsick favors an integrated approach to taxes and the environment, desiring to reform property taxes so as to fund government solely through fees on natural resource extraction, and fines on pollution and blight and disuse of land. He opposes privatizing Lake Michigan’s water rights, favoring the establishment of community land and water trusts.

            Kopsick opposes federal gun control legislation, and supports strengthening the Second Amendment by restoring it to its original intent of protecting the right of conscientious objection to military conscription. Concerning immigration, Kopsick opposes building a border wall, and would support legislative deferred action for childhood arrivals and their parents, rather than executive orders or memoranda effecting the same. On health, Kopsick will work to expand insurance coverage by legalizing interstate insurance purchase and eliminating the tax credit for employer provided insurance. He opposes federal restrictions on abortion, and considers mandated ultrasounds intrusive, costly, and medically unnecessary.

            On labor issues, Kopsick has criticized both Right to Work laws and compulsory union voting, and prefers allowing workers to personalize their retirements and opt-out of Social Security rather than privatizing the program. As alternatives to increasing the federal minimum wage, Kopsick hopes to increase the dollar’s purchasing power by reining-in the Federal Reserve, eliminating tariffs and sales taxes, and improving the balance of trade. Kopsick’s political writing is available on his blog www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com, and you can join the conversation about his campaign on Facebook at “Joe Kopsick for Congress 2016 (IL-10)”, and on Twitter @JoeK4Congress.