As the latest budget "deadline" approaches it is becoming more apparent that the Republican "leaders", those professional politicians, have learned little from the last election. John Boehner is proving that he has no courage.
When swept into office, the GOP promised $100 billion in spending cuts. Two months later they have delivered $10 billion. They're latest proposal is to cut an additional $61 billion. Ten plus sixty one does NOT equal 100. And worse, Boehner and his rhino cronies (are you listening Mr. Cantor) are now signaling that they may be willing to compromise on that.
For perspective, in February the federal government overspent their budget by $220 billion. That's one month, $220 billion in the red. So even if the GOP somehow finds the guts to make good on their $100 billion promise they will have managed to balance the federal budget for about 2 weeks. That's it.
The Dems, as usual, have resorted to scare tactics. The latest is to fill people with fear about a government shutdown and clear intent to blame the GOP for it. Boehner and the others are falling for it. In his latest statement he said his intent is "to cut spending, not shut down the government."
Well, Mr Boehner, I have some advice for you. Shut it down! You're operating in a cess pool of corruption and greed, of special interests all with their hands in the people's piggy bank. Shut it down! You run a government that overspends $5-10 billion a DAY, with no plan or intention to balance the budget or pay off the debt. Shut it down! You operate a ponzi scheme for retirees, a substandard healthcare payor system for the elderly, and devote billions of dollars to a failed educational system. Shut it down! You operate a flawed tax system that punishes achievement while subsidizing the laziness and lack of motivation in the unemployed. Shut it down! You send billions of dollars overseas to nations that hate us. Shut it down!
Most of all, you run a government that is bloated, incompetent, inefficient and ineffective at doing any of the things that the Consitution demands of it. It is a government run by people with no comprehension of the everyday life in America, by people with no business sense and no integrity, by people who care only about buying votes through entitlement spending and goverment handouts. And you do all these things while shaking down the American taxpayer and the job creators for every penny we have. If you don't have the marbles to reform this failed system then your only option is to SHUT IT DOWN!
Mr Boehner, the Tea Party may not be storming the capital building of Wisconsin, but I assure you we haven't gone away. We are strong and we are watching closely. We graced you with the office of the speakership. It is an honor for you, and a great responsibility. But we expect results. If those results aren't delivered, then this Congressional term will be your last as you will be sent back to Ohio unemployed.
If they give you no other option...SHUT IT DOWN!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
No. 11: Order
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
"In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create the issues or the problems" - Saul Alinsky
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall" - Che Guevara
"Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism" - Karl Marx
Common sense Americans understand that utopia on earth is a fantasy, a myth. This understanding may be based on religious beliefs for some, and for others it is based on, well, common sense. Whatever the basis, those of us anchored in reality understand the reality of the world. Heaven on earth cannot be engineered by man.
The Liberal rejects this. The Liberal believes in a man-made utopia and aggressively pursues it. How is their utopia defined? Well, you can reference many different Liberal thinkers. John Lennon said "Imagine no possessions". Karl Marx described the absence of opposition to socialism. Barack Obama said "spread the wealth". I could cite other examples but the basic formula is there...social justice. That is the root of the Liberal utopia, first crafted by Karl Marx and championed by many who came after him. In a word, utopia is socialism.
But the Liberal understands that socialism is not attractive to the common sense American. We are a nation that is built on the traditions of self-reliance, hard work, and overcoming adversity. We are not a nation of handouts. We are generous to those in need, but we abhore laziness and sloth. And common sense Americans understand that a socialist system breeds laziness, that social justice rewards looters, those who take from the ones who work hard for a living. Because of this, Americans reject Karl Marx and his socialist theory.
This poses a problem for the Liberal, and therefore a strategy has developed. The Liberal knows that in an ordered society, a society in which Americans are content, the common sense folks will always reject socialism. But take away that order, create chaos, and you create an environment that is ripe for breeding collectivism. The Liberal understands that humans will never surrender their basic rights unless life has become miserable. When fear rules the day, liberty is often the first to be sacrificed. Therefore, the Liberal seeks to destroy the ordered society and replace it with fear and chaos, the objective being a slow transition to collectivism and, ultimately, utopia.
It is no coincidence that all well-known Liberal thinkers share the common theme of revolution. Whether it's Joseph Stalin or Vlad Lenin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Fidel Castro, or Alinsky, Louis Farrakhan, Che Guevara, Malcolm X, even the lesser known liberal thinkers like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. They all speak of revolution.
Revolution (defined partly as) - a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Revolution is an idea readily embraced by all who hold Liberal ideals.
Saul Alinsky spoke of it in "Rules for Radicals" and his tactics have been adopted by the radicals worldwide. This past weekend in the UK you see this on display. Radicals smashing windows, vandalizing buildings, threatening violence. You saw it in Wisconsin with radicals obstructing the democratic process and threatening the lives of several GOP lawmakers.
George Soros produces revolution by attacking the US currency, taking extreme measures to devalue the dollar and create economic chaos. Just as Lenin said, "the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency". This is revolution.
Recently, a story broke (ignored by the MSM) about an SEIU big-wig plotting the economic destruction of America. Stephen Lerner was caught on tape encouraging his followers to stop paying their mortgages with the intent to ultimately crash the US stock market.
In Greece, protests erupted the moment the government began cutting public benefits. Those protests transformed into riots; eventually fires and destruction spread throughout Greek cities. Similar protests have been seen in France and Portugal as well as the UK.
The point is this: Create chaos, create suffering, create fear, and the masses will surrender their liberty. This is how revolution is achieved. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
You can see it in the Liberal assault on the family. His hatred of religion. His rejection of motherhood. His economic policies that create fiscal deterioration. His efforts in bypassing the democratic process through the judiciary. His overall lack of morality. His class warfare and use of envy as a weapon, organizing the non-producers to oppose and rebel against those who produce. All of these things lead to social chaos and it is this that feeds the Liberal cause.
Order is a product of a civil society. A civil society will always be one of basic conservative principles and will always reject collectivism. So the Liberal understands that the civil society must be destroyed and this is best done by attacking conservative principles and eliminating order.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Order must be destroyed for collectivism to emerge.
"In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create the issues or the problems" - Saul Alinsky
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall" - Che Guevara
"Peace is the absence of opposition to socialism" - Karl Marx
Common sense Americans understand that utopia on earth is a fantasy, a myth. This understanding may be based on religious beliefs for some, and for others it is based on, well, common sense. Whatever the basis, those of us anchored in reality understand the reality of the world. Heaven on earth cannot be engineered by man.
The Liberal rejects this. The Liberal believes in a man-made utopia and aggressively pursues it. How is their utopia defined? Well, you can reference many different Liberal thinkers. John Lennon said "Imagine no possessions". Karl Marx described the absence of opposition to socialism. Barack Obama said "spread the wealth". I could cite other examples but the basic formula is there...social justice. That is the root of the Liberal utopia, first crafted by Karl Marx and championed by many who came after him. In a word, utopia is socialism.
But the Liberal understands that socialism is not attractive to the common sense American. We are a nation that is built on the traditions of self-reliance, hard work, and overcoming adversity. We are not a nation of handouts. We are generous to those in need, but we abhore laziness and sloth. And common sense Americans understand that a socialist system breeds laziness, that social justice rewards looters, those who take from the ones who work hard for a living. Because of this, Americans reject Karl Marx and his socialist theory.
This poses a problem for the Liberal, and therefore a strategy has developed. The Liberal knows that in an ordered society, a society in which Americans are content, the common sense folks will always reject socialism. But take away that order, create chaos, and you create an environment that is ripe for breeding collectivism. The Liberal understands that humans will never surrender their basic rights unless life has become miserable. When fear rules the day, liberty is often the first to be sacrificed. Therefore, the Liberal seeks to destroy the ordered society and replace it with fear and chaos, the objective being a slow transition to collectivism and, ultimately, utopia.
It is no coincidence that all well-known Liberal thinkers share the common theme of revolution. Whether it's Joseph Stalin or Vlad Lenin, or Mao Tse Tung, or Fidel Castro, or Alinsky, Louis Farrakhan, Che Guevara, Malcolm X, even the lesser known liberal thinkers like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. They all speak of revolution.
Revolution (defined partly as) - a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Revolution is an idea readily embraced by all who hold Liberal ideals.
Saul Alinsky spoke of it in "Rules for Radicals" and his tactics have been adopted by the radicals worldwide. This past weekend in the UK you see this on display. Radicals smashing windows, vandalizing buildings, threatening violence. You saw it in Wisconsin with radicals obstructing the democratic process and threatening the lives of several GOP lawmakers.
George Soros produces revolution by attacking the US currency, taking extreme measures to devalue the dollar and create economic chaos. Just as Lenin said, "the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency". This is revolution.
Recently, a story broke (ignored by the MSM) about an SEIU big-wig plotting the economic destruction of America. Stephen Lerner was caught on tape encouraging his followers to stop paying their mortgages with the intent to ultimately crash the US stock market.
In Greece, protests erupted the moment the government began cutting public benefits. Those protests transformed into riots; eventually fires and destruction spread throughout Greek cities. Similar protests have been seen in France and Portugal as well as the UK.
The point is this: Create chaos, create suffering, create fear, and the masses will surrender their liberty. This is how revolution is achieved. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
You can see it in the Liberal assault on the family. His hatred of religion. His rejection of motherhood. His economic policies that create fiscal deterioration. His efforts in bypassing the democratic process through the judiciary. His overall lack of morality. His class warfare and use of envy as a weapon, organizing the non-producers to oppose and rebel against those who produce. All of these things lead to social chaos and it is this that feeds the Liberal cause.
Order is a product of a civil society. A civil society will always be one of basic conservative principles and will always reject collectivism. So the Liberal understands that the civil society must be destroyed and this is best done by attacking conservative principles and eliminating order.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Order must be destroyed for collectivism to emerge.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
No. 12: Global Warming
Over the next few weeks I will be performing my own little political countdown. It's more for my amusement than anything else, but I also feel that it's a good way to glimpse into the mind of the average Liberal. Such humorous creatures these Liberals, and yet so mysterious. This is my list of the top 20 things Liberals don't believe. We'll say it's in the interest of understanding one another.
I am not a climatologist. I know nothing about meteorology, geology or astronomy. Ask me when the last ice age occured and I'll have to do an internet search to answer. So I readily admit that I don't have the scientific expertise to debate the global warming theorists from a scientific perspective.
But, I am a common sense American. I tend to see things in simple terms. Keeping it simple adds clarity and understanding and is the easiest way to solve problems. So like other common sense Americans I see the global warming theory and apply what we call the "whiff" test. If it doesn't smell right then it probably came from the malodorous end of a male bovine.
The theorists tell me that the earth is warming because of the horrible things we humans are doing. But I know for a fact that over the past decade global temperatures have actually declined. They don't comment on that fact but instead tell me that just about any natural phenomena can be attributed to our horrible behavior, and they use the occurrence of these events to strengthen their argument.
If a terrible hurrican strikes New Orleans, it's due to global warming.
If there is a brush fire in California, it's due to global warming.
If there is a dust storm in Oklahoma, or a drought in Texas, it's all global warming.
If Buffalo gets buried in snow, or Florida gets drenched in rain, it's global warming.
If it's hot outside it's global warming. But if it's too cold then we must also blame global warming. If there is starvation in the world, horrible tsunamis, catastrophic earthquakes, dead birds, dead fish, a bear attack in Alaska, too few deer, too many frogs...it is ALL due to global warming.
Hmmm. I scratch my head a bit.
What's really interesting about all of this isn't the theory itself. There can be some validity to what these people are saying. No, what bothers me is the solution and those who offer it. Driven mainly by the UN the focus on solving this global crisis seems to be targeted towards the US. Basically, we burn too many fossil fuels and therefore we're the reason why the planet is dying.
"What about China and India," a common sense American might ask.
Well, they are basically ignored. There is no international pressure on those two countries - both of which produce very large amounts of greenhouse gases - to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. Instead, it's all about America. And that's when I start to get skeptical.
"OK, so we need to build more nuclear plants. Switching from coal power to nuclear power will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," says the common sense American.
No. That's not acceptable. Nuclear is too dangerous, meltdowns and such. Not an option.
"OK, so lets build a bunch of windmills."
No. They kill birds and they are an eyesore. We can't have the beautiful countryside marred by these ugly things.
"So what do you want us to do."
For starters, we need to burn corn alcohol instead of oil. Yes, it is a less efficient fuel. Yes, when you account for the production process AND the lack of efficiency you find that using corn alcohol actually produces a net INCREASE in greenhouse gases. Yes, corn is food and perhaps could be put to better use by feeding those mouths who starve because of global warming. Nevermind all of that. We need to just burn more corn alcohol and less oil.
Hmmm. The common sense American scratches his head some more.
But that's not all. And here we get to the chewy center of what global warming is all about. They tell us that the only way...the ONLY WAY we can save the planet is if America reduces its consumption of resources. We must slow our economy down. We must regress. We must contract. We must get smaller.
Hmmm. The skepticism builds.
But not only that. They also tell us that we should pay those countries who don't produce so much pollution in order to offset the "cost" of the damage we are doing to the planet.
Hmmm. So those who produce must pay those who don't produce to balance the inequality and bring justice to the planet. Does anyone else hear the voice of Karl Marx?
Here's the deal, folks. Global warming is a fantasy. It's a cooked-up theory without any solid scientific evidence. Liberals don't actually believe that we humans are killing the planet by burning coal and oil. If they did, then they would support more nuclear energy. They would support more wind farms. And, most importantly, they would live their lives accordingly. Anyone remember the last time Al Gore did something that would be considered "green"? Do you see any of those green Hollywood celebrities using clothe diapers, or living in solar powered homes, or using geothermal heating/cooling?
No, they don't actually believe this stuff. What they do believe is social justice. They believe in the redistribution of wealth. They believe in "from those who are most able to those who are most in need". And they've taken those beliefs global. So global warming is nothing more than Marxism on an international level. And how do you convince the "rich" nations to redistribute their wealth to the nations "in need"? Well, you cook up a theory about how progress kills the planet and you tell them that their children and grandchildren will suffer immensely if something isn't done right away.
Common sense Americans see this nonsense for what it is. In a word, it stinks. Perhaps we'd be more accepting of the theory if the environmentalists supported nuclear energy. Or if Al Gore rode his bicycle to his $10,000 a plate dinners. Or if we stopped focusing on food for energy and actually used it for food. Or if the UN would chastise China and India like they do America. But that's not how it is.
So, common sense Americans don't buy the kooky theories. Neither do the Liberals for that matter, but the theory serves their political purposes so they trumpet it as if it were gospel.
I am not a climatologist. I know nothing about meteorology, geology or astronomy. Ask me when the last ice age occured and I'll have to do an internet search to answer. So I readily admit that I don't have the scientific expertise to debate the global warming theorists from a scientific perspective.
But, I am a common sense American. I tend to see things in simple terms. Keeping it simple adds clarity and understanding and is the easiest way to solve problems. So like other common sense Americans I see the global warming theory and apply what we call the "whiff" test. If it doesn't smell right then it probably came from the malodorous end of a male bovine.
The theorists tell me that the earth is warming because of the horrible things we humans are doing. But I know for a fact that over the past decade global temperatures have actually declined. They don't comment on that fact but instead tell me that just about any natural phenomena can be attributed to our horrible behavior, and they use the occurrence of these events to strengthen their argument.
If a terrible hurrican strikes New Orleans, it's due to global warming.
If there is a brush fire in California, it's due to global warming.
If there is a dust storm in Oklahoma, or a drought in Texas, it's all global warming.
If Buffalo gets buried in snow, or Florida gets drenched in rain, it's global warming.
If it's hot outside it's global warming. But if it's too cold then we must also blame global warming. If there is starvation in the world, horrible tsunamis, catastrophic earthquakes, dead birds, dead fish, a bear attack in Alaska, too few deer, too many frogs...it is ALL due to global warming.
Hmmm. I scratch my head a bit.
What's really interesting about all of this isn't the theory itself. There can be some validity to what these people are saying. No, what bothers me is the solution and those who offer it. Driven mainly by the UN the focus on solving this global crisis seems to be targeted towards the US. Basically, we burn too many fossil fuels and therefore we're the reason why the planet is dying.
"What about China and India," a common sense American might ask.
Well, they are basically ignored. There is no international pressure on those two countries - both of which produce very large amounts of greenhouse gases - to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. Instead, it's all about America. And that's when I start to get skeptical.
"OK, so we need to build more nuclear plants. Switching from coal power to nuclear power will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," says the common sense American.
No. That's not acceptable. Nuclear is too dangerous, meltdowns and such. Not an option.
"OK, so lets build a bunch of windmills."
No. They kill birds and they are an eyesore. We can't have the beautiful countryside marred by these ugly things.
"So what do you want us to do."
For starters, we need to burn corn alcohol instead of oil. Yes, it is a less efficient fuel. Yes, when you account for the production process AND the lack of efficiency you find that using corn alcohol actually produces a net INCREASE in greenhouse gases. Yes, corn is food and perhaps could be put to better use by feeding those mouths who starve because of global warming. Nevermind all of that. We need to just burn more corn alcohol and less oil.
Hmmm. The common sense American scratches his head some more.
But that's not all. And here we get to the chewy center of what global warming is all about. They tell us that the only way...the ONLY WAY we can save the planet is if America reduces its consumption of resources. We must slow our economy down. We must regress. We must contract. We must get smaller.
Hmmm. The skepticism builds.
But not only that. They also tell us that we should pay those countries who don't produce so much pollution in order to offset the "cost" of the damage we are doing to the planet.
Hmmm. So those who produce must pay those who don't produce to balance the inequality and bring justice to the planet. Does anyone else hear the voice of Karl Marx?
Here's the deal, folks. Global warming is a fantasy. It's a cooked-up theory without any solid scientific evidence. Liberals don't actually believe that we humans are killing the planet by burning coal and oil. If they did, then they would support more nuclear energy. They would support more wind farms. And, most importantly, they would live their lives accordingly. Anyone remember the last time Al Gore did something that would be considered "green"? Do you see any of those green Hollywood celebrities using clothe diapers, or living in solar powered homes, or using geothermal heating/cooling?
No, they don't actually believe this stuff. What they do believe is social justice. They believe in the redistribution of wealth. They believe in "from those who are most able to those who are most in need". And they've taken those beliefs global. So global warming is nothing more than Marxism on an international level. And how do you convince the "rich" nations to redistribute their wealth to the nations "in need"? Well, you cook up a theory about how progress kills the planet and you tell them that their children and grandchildren will suffer immensely if something isn't done right away.
Common sense Americans see this nonsense for what it is. In a word, it stinks. Perhaps we'd be more accepting of the theory if the environmentalists supported nuclear energy. Or if Al Gore rode his bicycle to his $10,000 a plate dinners. Or if we stopped focusing on food for energy and actually used it for food. Or if the UN would chastise China and India like they do America. But that's not how it is.
So, common sense Americans don't buy the kooky theories. Neither do the Liberals for that matter, but the theory serves their political purposes so they trumpet it as if it were gospel.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Libya
Anytime a President makes a decision to kill terrorists I will support it. In my opinion, killing terrorists should be a foreign policy priority for anyone who occupies the Oval Office. In fact, I would support making it a part of the Oath of Office. Killing terrorists makes the world a better place, a safer place. And it makes our country safer. So when President Obama first decided to commit American military forces to the conflict in Libya I felt the need to support him.
But there are many things about this that bother me.
1) There was no plan. The community organizer seemed to be bullied into this by the French and the British. It is obvious that he didn't want to do it and that shows in the fact that he has no real plan for executing a mission that doesn't seem to be defined. That's not the way to start a military campaign.
2) There is no objective. What the community organizer so obviously doesn't understand is that whenever the military is sent into battle they MUST be given a clear, definitive objective. A task must be carried out. You have the tools, the training, the leadership, now go do it. But in this case there is no objective. We don't know why we're there and what we're supposed to be doing.
3) References to "humanitarian". I've said this many times, American forces ARE NOT humanitarian forces. They are trained to kill and destroy. When you blur those skills with "humanitarian"-type stuff that's when problems arise. The United States has no business sending our forces into humanitarian problems. When you do that you risk losing A LOT of support on the homefront.
4) No congressional involvement. Anytime a military action is carried out then it's imperative that Congress is in the loop. They represent the people. They appropriate the funds. They must know what's going on. The community organizer failed at this.
5) No target on Qaddafi. If Obama had come out and said that Qaddafi is the target then I would be on board. In short, we owe him one. He is responsible for Lockerbie and there are many Americans who still mourn their dead loved ones who were murdered at the hands of this monster. He should've been eliminated a long time ago. But Obama has made it clear that eliminating Qaddafi is not the objective.
6) No leadership. I've never seen a US President so hesitant to be a world leader. He is passing that role to others like a hot potato and I'm not sure what to think about it. But it just doesn't seem right.
7) Who are we helping? There are some indications that the rebels engaged in combat with Qaddafi may be sympathetic to al qaeda, and in fact may be supported by al qaeda. That's a key piece of intelligence don't you think? Seems to me that if we're going to fight a "humanitarian" mission to protect people in the Middle East we should at least ensure that those we protect are supportive of democratic ideals and NOT friends of the extremists who seek to destroy us.
So, American forces are in harms way and I support their efforts. I hope this ends well and everyone returns home safely. Meanwhile, my lack of confidence in Obama's command ability has been validated.
Most US presidents would commit to battle with a plan, an objective, the support of congress, a clear definition of the enemy and the resolve to lead a coalition of democracies. Obama failed in all of these. At the very least he should have gone on television and talked to the American people. He should've told us what we're doing, why it must be done, who we're helping and why they must be helped. He should've made his case. But he didn't
The community organizer has proven himself unfit to command. As each day goes by it becomes more clear that this gamble by the American voter has been a colossal failure, the worst this side of Jimmy Carter.
It's bad enough that he's running our economy into the ground and has all but ruined the world's best health care system. Now, he's putting American pilots in harm's way for no clear reason.
November 2012 can't come soon enough.
But there are many things about this that bother me.
1) There was no plan. The community organizer seemed to be bullied into this by the French and the British. It is obvious that he didn't want to do it and that shows in the fact that he has no real plan for executing a mission that doesn't seem to be defined. That's not the way to start a military campaign.
2) There is no objective. What the community organizer so obviously doesn't understand is that whenever the military is sent into battle they MUST be given a clear, definitive objective. A task must be carried out. You have the tools, the training, the leadership, now go do it. But in this case there is no objective. We don't know why we're there and what we're supposed to be doing.
3) References to "humanitarian". I've said this many times, American forces ARE NOT humanitarian forces. They are trained to kill and destroy. When you blur those skills with "humanitarian"-type stuff that's when problems arise. The United States has no business sending our forces into humanitarian problems. When you do that you risk losing A LOT of support on the homefront.
4) No congressional involvement. Anytime a military action is carried out then it's imperative that Congress is in the loop. They represent the people. They appropriate the funds. They must know what's going on. The community organizer failed at this.
5) No target on Qaddafi. If Obama had come out and said that Qaddafi is the target then I would be on board. In short, we owe him one. He is responsible for Lockerbie and there are many Americans who still mourn their dead loved ones who were murdered at the hands of this monster. He should've been eliminated a long time ago. But Obama has made it clear that eliminating Qaddafi is not the objective.
6) No leadership. I've never seen a US President so hesitant to be a world leader. He is passing that role to others like a hot potato and I'm not sure what to think about it. But it just doesn't seem right.
7) Who are we helping? There are some indications that the rebels engaged in combat with Qaddafi may be sympathetic to al qaeda, and in fact may be supported by al qaeda. That's a key piece of intelligence don't you think? Seems to me that if we're going to fight a "humanitarian" mission to protect people in the Middle East we should at least ensure that those we protect are supportive of democratic ideals and NOT friends of the extremists who seek to destroy us.
So, American forces are in harms way and I support their efforts. I hope this ends well and everyone returns home safely. Meanwhile, my lack of confidence in Obama's command ability has been validated.
Most US presidents would commit to battle with a plan, an objective, the support of congress, a clear definition of the enemy and the resolve to lead a coalition of democracies. Obama failed in all of these. At the very least he should have gone on television and talked to the American people. He should've told us what we're doing, why it must be done, who we're helping and why they must be helped. He should've made his case. But he didn't
The community organizer has proven himself unfit to command. As each day goes by it becomes more clear that this gamble by the American voter has been a colossal failure, the worst this side of Jimmy Carter.
It's bad enough that he's running our economy into the ground and has all but ruined the world's best health care system. Now, he's putting American pilots in harm's way for no clear reason.
November 2012 can't come soon enough.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Tax day approaches
Tax day is just around the corner so I figured it's time for my obligatory post about it. For half of all Americans, this is a day when our private property is seized by a bloated, incompetent, ineffective, inefficient federal government whose main purpose nowadays seems to be focused on taking that property and distributing it to the other 50% of the population as a legal means of bribery. All of this, of course, is done because that half of the population has the ability to vote. This is how the game is played. Getting elected and re-elected is what it's all about for our politicians and they all know that taking from an ever-shrinking portion of the population and giving to an ever-growing population is the perfect recipe for retaining power in Washington.
Therefore, my Constitutional right to private property is trampled about this time every year in order to fulfill some other person's non-Constitutional "right" to medical care, or retirement income, or child care, or food stamps, or education, or employment, or housing, etc. I just completed my tax returns for the year and I must say when I see how much of my labor and productivity goes to fund this nonsense it makes me physically ill.
So, the obvious question comes to mind: What do I get out of this? What am I buying for the money that I send to Washington? Whatever it is, it is way overpriced and I'm certain I could purchase it elsewhere without forking over a third of my total income. I mean, I understand that freedom isn't free and that it's important to fund our military. The defense budget represents about 18% of all federal expenditures and I'm more than happy to pay my share to fund it. Also, I'm fine with forking over a much smaller portion to fund our court system, justice department, homeland security, and to maintain our currency. But add it up and you're still well short of half the federal budget. The rest? Well, it mainly goes to subsidies, handouts as they are more commonly called. And that's when I wonder just what it is that I get in return? I think the answer is obvious. I get squat.
That brings me to the next question. Since I don't actually get any good or service for approximately half the money that I send to Washington; and since there are many US citizens who DO get something for my money; then what is it those people owe me in return?
Follow me, here. Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, states clearly that all men are created equal. Therefore, I am equal in the eyes of the government to my neighbor who pays no taxes and yet draws money from the government in the form of some sort of handout. I have done nothing in the course of my lifetime to incur a debt to my neighbor, so legally I owe him nothing. Yet, I am legally forced to surrender a portion of my earnings to him nonetheless. Again, we are equal and I owe him nothing, but still my money is taken (without my consent) and given to him. Doesn't he then owe me something in return?
If you say no, then you are saying that I am somehow indebted to that person - which I am not - OR that his rights as a citizen supersede my rights, thus we are not "created equal". Either answer will make you look like a fool or worse.
So back to my original question: What do these people owe me? I admit it would be nice for someone who is latched on to the government teet to come over and help me clean my house, or cut my grass, or fold my laundry, or repaint my bathroom. At least then the government could justify the robbery that they commit every April, perhaps even to the point that it wouldn't be considered robbery at all but a very expensive lawn and laundry service. But we all know that won't happen.
So I guess I'll just have to settle for a simple thank you. Thank you for working hard, Mr. Taxpayer, so I don't have to, so I can have a free education, or drop my kid off at daycare every day, or have my prescription Viagra filled every month. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure that I can have this cushy government job with 30 hour work weeks, one month of paid vacation a year and gold-plated health plans. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure NPR stays on the air, broadcasting progressive propaganda that you don't even agree with. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for funding our crappy schools so I can pull down my six figure salary and complain about not having enough money to "teach the children". Thank you, Mr Taxpayer, for the cowboy poetry, the turtle crossings, the oyster bed studies, the $200 screwdrivers, the reproductive counseling, the blasphemic art, the swine flatus investigations, the multi-million dollar airports that no one uses, the bridges to nowhere, the private congressional jets. Thank you for it all, Mr. Taxpayer. Without you none of it would be possible.
Something like that.
Well, I'm waiting...
Therefore, my Constitutional right to private property is trampled about this time every year in order to fulfill some other person's non-Constitutional "right" to medical care, or retirement income, or child care, or food stamps, or education, or employment, or housing, etc. I just completed my tax returns for the year and I must say when I see how much of my labor and productivity goes to fund this nonsense it makes me physically ill.
So, the obvious question comes to mind: What do I get out of this? What am I buying for the money that I send to Washington? Whatever it is, it is way overpriced and I'm certain I could purchase it elsewhere without forking over a third of my total income. I mean, I understand that freedom isn't free and that it's important to fund our military. The defense budget represents about 18% of all federal expenditures and I'm more than happy to pay my share to fund it. Also, I'm fine with forking over a much smaller portion to fund our court system, justice department, homeland security, and to maintain our currency. But add it up and you're still well short of half the federal budget. The rest? Well, it mainly goes to subsidies, handouts as they are more commonly called. And that's when I wonder just what it is that I get in return? I think the answer is obvious. I get squat.
That brings me to the next question. Since I don't actually get any good or service for approximately half the money that I send to Washington; and since there are many US citizens who DO get something for my money; then what is it those people owe me in return?
Follow me, here. Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence, states clearly that all men are created equal. Therefore, I am equal in the eyes of the government to my neighbor who pays no taxes and yet draws money from the government in the form of some sort of handout. I have done nothing in the course of my lifetime to incur a debt to my neighbor, so legally I owe him nothing. Yet, I am legally forced to surrender a portion of my earnings to him nonetheless. Again, we are equal and I owe him nothing, but still my money is taken (without my consent) and given to him. Doesn't he then owe me something in return?
If you say no, then you are saying that I am somehow indebted to that person - which I am not - OR that his rights as a citizen supersede my rights, thus we are not "created equal". Either answer will make you look like a fool or worse.
So back to my original question: What do these people owe me? I admit it would be nice for someone who is latched on to the government teet to come over and help me clean my house, or cut my grass, or fold my laundry, or repaint my bathroom. At least then the government could justify the robbery that they commit every April, perhaps even to the point that it wouldn't be considered robbery at all but a very expensive lawn and laundry service. But we all know that won't happen.
So I guess I'll just have to settle for a simple thank you. Thank you for working hard, Mr. Taxpayer, so I don't have to, so I can have a free education, or drop my kid off at daycare every day, or have my prescription Viagra filled every month. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure that I can have this cushy government job with 30 hour work weeks, one month of paid vacation a year and gold-plated health plans. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure NPR stays on the air, broadcasting progressive propaganda that you don't even agree with. Thank you, Mr. Taxpayer, for funding our crappy schools so I can pull down my six figure salary and complain about not having enough money to "teach the children". Thank you, Mr Taxpayer, for the cowboy poetry, the turtle crossings, the oyster bed studies, the $200 screwdrivers, the reproductive counseling, the blasphemic art, the swine flatus investigations, the multi-million dollar airports that no one uses, the bridges to nowhere, the private congressional jets. Thank you for it all, Mr. Taxpayer. Without you none of it would be possible.
Something like that.
Well, I'm waiting...
Friday, March 18, 2011
Unions and the Courts
Well, we only thought it was over. Last week, Wisconin Governor Scott Walker and his legislative allies were unsuccesful in their attempts to get the Democrat senators back into session, so they split the controversial bill into two parts and passed the non-budgetary portion without the presence of the Democrats. This portion was the part of the bill that limited the bullying (ie, collective bargaining) tactics of the unions.
Apparently, there was some procedural issue with the vote that allowed the Dems to challenge the law in court, and so they have. The result: an injunction against the law that was recently issued. And now, some thoughts from WEP:
First, I just wanted to point out that the protests at the Wisconsin capitol have been ongoing. For three...four...five weeks and counting the public union workers have been demonstrating against the state government. The interesting thing is that the Wisconsin government hasn't really noticed. These people have been out of work for quite some time and the state of Wisconsin hasn't missed a beat. So why do these people still have a job? Obviously, the service they provide isn't THAT crucial since they can skip work for weeks and hardly anyone notices. No drop off in production. No services disrupted. No portion of the government is shut down. Seems like a perfect opportunity to trim the state payroll a bit.
When the bill was split and passed, the union protestors went berserk. They decried the action as "undemocratic", "unAmerica", "unfair". They used terms like "assault on democracy", etc, etc. Pretty much any hyperbolic description that could portray the GOP legislators and governor as anti-public fascists was tossed around. But when the Democrat senators fled the state during the debate of the issue no one had a problem with it. And in the course of the union protests, there were numerous arrests of unruly demonstrators. Many people attempted to block the entrance of the capitol to prevent the legislators from entering. There were death threats made against some of the legislators. Apparently, this behavior exemplifies the unions' idea of democracy. Thuggery and bully tactics. Death threats. Using force to prevent elected representatives from voting on behalf of the people. Fleeing when the time comes to vote. This is democracy in the eyes of our union workers.
And in a separate display of their view of democracy, the Wisconsin Bolsheviks have decided to pursue recall votes for the governor and multiple legislators. Again, they are fine with elected representatives going AWOL, abandoning their post during the legislative session. That's okay. But pass a law they don't agree with, and they mobilize to subvert the will of the people.
That's democracy in the eyes of union.
When President Obama and the DC Dems decided to pass a bill that deconstructs our entire health care system, all without ANY GOP input, without a single GOP vote, without abiding by the rules of the senate, and with a procedural gimmick that bypassed built-in senate rules meant to prevent one party from imposing its will against the will of people...when all of this was done there was not a whimper from these public sector unions. No court challenges. No protests. No talk of "recall" or any opposing action. For the unions, it's all about their political interest.
And where is the mainstream media? You know, the ones who refer to the tea party as "teabaggers", accuse them of racism, of trying to interfere with the democratic process? Did any of these people have a problem with the union thugs blockading the Wisconsin capitol, threatening harm on state legislators?
Nope.
Bottom line, the public sector unions are bad for America. There is nothing American about them. They are a microcosm of the communist party and they do nothing beneficial for our economic system and our way of governance. The sooner they are pushed from power the better.
If I were Scott Walker, in light of the recent injunction, I would immediately pink slip however many government workers were necessary to help balance the budget. Let the court system run its course. Whatever. Meanwhile, there are budget issues that need to be addressed and we don't have time to wait. And if the union refuses to confront them then other measures are necessary.
But it looks like this issue will have to be settled in the courts. So much for the will of the people.
Apparently, there was some procedural issue with the vote that allowed the Dems to challenge the law in court, and so they have. The result: an injunction against the law that was recently issued. And now, some thoughts from WEP:
First, I just wanted to point out that the protests at the Wisconsin capitol have been ongoing. For three...four...five weeks and counting the public union workers have been demonstrating against the state government. The interesting thing is that the Wisconsin government hasn't really noticed. These people have been out of work for quite some time and the state of Wisconsin hasn't missed a beat. So why do these people still have a job? Obviously, the service they provide isn't THAT crucial since they can skip work for weeks and hardly anyone notices. No drop off in production. No services disrupted. No portion of the government is shut down. Seems like a perfect opportunity to trim the state payroll a bit.
When the bill was split and passed, the union protestors went berserk. They decried the action as "undemocratic", "unAmerica", "unfair". They used terms like "assault on democracy", etc, etc. Pretty much any hyperbolic description that could portray the GOP legislators and governor as anti-public fascists was tossed around. But when the Democrat senators fled the state during the debate of the issue no one had a problem with it. And in the course of the union protests, there were numerous arrests of unruly demonstrators. Many people attempted to block the entrance of the capitol to prevent the legislators from entering. There were death threats made against some of the legislators. Apparently, this behavior exemplifies the unions' idea of democracy. Thuggery and bully tactics. Death threats. Using force to prevent elected representatives from voting on behalf of the people. Fleeing when the time comes to vote. This is democracy in the eyes of our union workers.
And in a separate display of their view of democracy, the Wisconsin Bolsheviks have decided to pursue recall votes for the governor and multiple legislators. Again, they are fine with elected representatives going AWOL, abandoning their post during the legislative session. That's okay. But pass a law they don't agree with, and they mobilize to subvert the will of the people.
That's democracy in the eyes of union.
When President Obama and the DC Dems decided to pass a bill that deconstructs our entire health care system, all without ANY GOP input, without a single GOP vote, without abiding by the rules of the senate, and with a procedural gimmick that bypassed built-in senate rules meant to prevent one party from imposing its will against the will of people...when all of this was done there was not a whimper from these public sector unions. No court challenges. No protests. No talk of "recall" or any opposing action. For the unions, it's all about their political interest.
And where is the mainstream media? You know, the ones who refer to the tea party as "teabaggers", accuse them of racism, of trying to interfere with the democratic process? Did any of these people have a problem with the union thugs blockading the Wisconsin capitol, threatening harm on state legislators?
Nope.
Bottom line, the public sector unions are bad for America. There is nothing American about them. They are a microcosm of the communist party and they do nothing beneficial for our economic system and our way of governance. The sooner they are pushed from power the better.
If I were Scott Walker, in light of the recent injunction, I would immediately pink slip however many government workers were necessary to help balance the budget. Let the court system run its course. Whatever. Meanwhile, there are budget issues that need to be addressed and we don't have time to wait. And if the union refuses to confront them then other measures are necessary.
But it looks like this issue will have to be settled in the courts. So much for the will of the people.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
A bad sign for our economic future
Since late 2008 I've been expressing my concern over the rising debt crisis that this country faces. These concerns began with the Bush administration and the TARP bailouts and continued with Obama's economic stimulus package, GM/Chrysler bailouts and Obamacare. Our debt has skyrocketed and the deficit spending seems to be never ending.
My hope was that the new GOP House would begin the process of stopping the bleeding. That they would first find a way to stop the deficit spending and then formulate a sound plan on how to begin repaying our debt. Something like this would signal to the rest of the world that the dollar remains a sound investment and that their money would be safe with us. That was my hope.
Well, last week, that hope took a hard body blow. The GOP house proposed a budget that included $60 billion in budget cuts. Sounds like a lot of money, but lets add some perspective. The Federal Government overspent a deficit level of $226 billion in FEBRUARY ALONE...just last month. That's one month, $226 billion in deficit spending. And the new GOP house proposes a mere $60 billion in ANNUAL budget cuts. Obviously, this is unacceptable.
Even worse, that proposal was quickly shot down by the Democrat-led senate because it was considered too severe and too drastic in budget cutting.
So, it is now clear that despite the election results we continue to send people to Washington who lack the courage to do what must be done to protect our credit and save the dollar (and given the response in Wisconsin when the Governor attempts some modest proposal to reduce spending you can hardly blame them). There are exceptions - Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann to name a few - but for the most part the politicians continue to behave like politicians and have essentially sent the world a message that in America it's business as usual. Our borrow/spend mentality continues, and we will do nothing to modify this behavior no matter how dire the economic forecasts become.
Unfortunately, those forecasts are soon to become very dire indeed. I believe the course has been set and our economy is headed for some very difficult times. I believe we are in for an inflationary period like never period. I believe the dollar is on danger of a massive collapse, followed by the stock market. The effects will be severe and they will be global. I don't know when this will happen but given the cowardice we see in Washington I don't see how it couldn't happen.
Hopefully I am wrong.
My hope was that the new GOP House would begin the process of stopping the bleeding. That they would first find a way to stop the deficit spending and then formulate a sound plan on how to begin repaying our debt. Something like this would signal to the rest of the world that the dollar remains a sound investment and that their money would be safe with us. That was my hope.
Well, last week, that hope took a hard body blow. The GOP house proposed a budget that included $60 billion in budget cuts. Sounds like a lot of money, but lets add some perspective. The Federal Government overspent a deficit level of $226 billion in FEBRUARY ALONE...just last month. That's one month, $226 billion in deficit spending. And the new GOP house proposes a mere $60 billion in ANNUAL budget cuts. Obviously, this is unacceptable.
Even worse, that proposal was quickly shot down by the Democrat-led senate because it was considered too severe and too drastic in budget cutting.
So, it is now clear that despite the election results we continue to send people to Washington who lack the courage to do what must be done to protect our credit and save the dollar (and given the response in Wisconsin when the Governor attempts some modest proposal to reduce spending you can hardly blame them). There are exceptions - Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann to name a few - but for the most part the politicians continue to behave like politicians and have essentially sent the world a message that in America it's business as usual. Our borrow/spend mentality continues, and we will do nothing to modify this behavior no matter how dire the economic forecasts become.
Unfortunately, those forecasts are soon to become very dire indeed. I believe the course has been set and our economy is headed for some very difficult times. I believe we are in for an inflationary period like never period. I believe the dollar is on danger of a massive collapse, followed by the stock market. The effects will be severe and they will be global. I don't know when this will happen but given the cowardice we see in Washington I don't see how it couldn't happen.
Hopefully I am wrong.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
I support Representative King
I support what Representative Peter King is doing. Why? Because I think investigating the threat of Jihad within the American Muslim community is a worthy investigation. I don't know if Jihad is a problem among American Muslims, but I would like to know, and wanting to know that doesn't make me a racist or an "Islamophobe".
I think asking if mainstream mosques support Jihad and support Sharia law is a question worth asking. Because I think the answers to these questions will benefit us all. If Mr. King discovers that Jihad is indeed a major focus in the mainstream American Muslim community then we have done much for our national defense. If he discovers the opposite, then we have done much to heal our divisions and diminish the suspicion - warranted or not - that many Americans carry toward Muslims. So I think he is doing the right thing.
But some people feel otherwise, and the old tactics of the Left once again emerge. King is being attacked and demonized for this. He has been likened to McCarthy, called racist, Islamophobe and of course compared to Hitler (isn't that their favorite comparison?). If you listen to the Left, you would think King is preparing to gather all Muslims into detention facilities like FDR did with the Japanese. The sensationalism has really gotten out of hand.
Have you ever noticed that this is the same basic tactic the Left always uses? No matter the issue, large or small; state, local or federal; the Left always seems to be a one trick pony. They divide us into groups, pigeon hole us according to what serves their purpose best, and then pit us against one another based on those divisions, feeding off the chaos that ensues and advancing their own political causes as a result.
If it's not rich vs. poor; working class vs. wealthy class; Muslim vs. Christian; it's Gay vs. Straight, White vs. Black, Old vs. Young, Insured vs. Uninsured. This is all they have. They can't argue their issue based on the merits of their position because usually their position has no merits. It's hard to argue that public unions deserve the right to contribute millions to elect politicians that will turn around and vote to give the unions more millions in taxpayer dollars. You can't argue for that, so they make it a rich vs. poor thing, a wealthy vs. "the working man" issue because that's all they CAN do. You can't argue the rationality in asking the questions that Mr. King is asking, so they make it a racial matter, an "anti-Muslim" matter, a Muslim vs. non Muslim matter. Their hope is to shame the rational thinkers and common sense Americans into seeing things their way. It's the only trick in their bag of tricks and unfortunately sometimes it works. Sometimes we are guilted into losing our common sense and rational thinking. Guilted and shamed into basically thinking like a Liberal. Hopefully, those days are soon over. More and more of our political leaders are beginning to display courage against these attacks and refuse to be shamed by the nonsensical.
No, King feels these questions are important to answer and so he is determined to answer them. I think we all - Muslim or non Muslim - will benefit from it.
I think asking if mainstream mosques support Jihad and support Sharia law is a question worth asking. Because I think the answers to these questions will benefit us all. If Mr. King discovers that Jihad is indeed a major focus in the mainstream American Muslim community then we have done much for our national defense. If he discovers the opposite, then we have done much to heal our divisions and diminish the suspicion - warranted or not - that many Americans carry toward Muslims. So I think he is doing the right thing.
But some people feel otherwise, and the old tactics of the Left once again emerge. King is being attacked and demonized for this. He has been likened to McCarthy, called racist, Islamophobe and of course compared to Hitler (isn't that their favorite comparison?). If you listen to the Left, you would think King is preparing to gather all Muslims into detention facilities like FDR did with the Japanese. The sensationalism has really gotten out of hand.
Have you ever noticed that this is the same basic tactic the Left always uses? No matter the issue, large or small; state, local or federal; the Left always seems to be a one trick pony. They divide us into groups, pigeon hole us according to what serves their purpose best, and then pit us against one another based on those divisions, feeding off the chaos that ensues and advancing their own political causes as a result.
If it's not rich vs. poor; working class vs. wealthy class; Muslim vs. Christian; it's Gay vs. Straight, White vs. Black, Old vs. Young, Insured vs. Uninsured. This is all they have. They can't argue their issue based on the merits of their position because usually their position has no merits. It's hard to argue that public unions deserve the right to contribute millions to elect politicians that will turn around and vote to give the unions more millions in taxpayer dollars. You can't argue for that, so they make it a rich vs. poor thing, a wealthy vs. "the working man" issue because that's all they CAN do. You can't argue the rationality in asking the questions that Mr. King is asking, so they make it a racial matter, an "anti-Muslim" matter, a Muslim vs. non Muslim matter. Their hope is to shame the rational thinkers and common sense Americans into seeing things their way. It's the only trick in their bag of tricks and unfortunately sometimes it works. Sometimes we are guilted into losing our common sense and rational thinking. Guilted and shamed into basically thinking like a Liberal. Hopefully, those days are soon over. More and more of our political leaders are beginning to display courage against these attacks and refuse to be shamed by the nonsensical.
No, King feels these questions are important to answer and so he is determined to answer them. I think we all - Muslim or non Muslim - will benefit from it.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Why is "union-buster" a bad word?
I've heard it many times. Union leaders, political opponents, journalists all attempting to label Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker a "union buster". President Obama himself called the law in question an "attack on unions". And Walker always acts to deflect these charges as if union-busting is a bad thing, a political taboo.
Why?
First, let me differentiate my opinions about private sector unions and public sector unions. To be clear, I don't agree with unionized labor at all. At best it is inefficient and incompetent - my own experience with union made goods will testify to that. At worst it is thuggery in the workplace. I don't think unionized labor has a place in a free market society because it's bad for competition. But if the private sector workers want to unionize then so be it. They have that right. Eventually, this is a self-defeating strategy. If a group of workers repeatedly pursue demands that raise the price of goods and services then the employer is ultimately robbed of their ability to compete effectively in the open market. Sooner or later the company dies (see GM and Chrysler) and everyone loses. At least, that's how it's supposed to work, until a deranged group of lawmakers use public money to bail out such companies, then EVERYONE truly loses, even those of us who have nothing to do with that company.
But public sector unions are different. The public workers are paid by the government, and thus the taxpayers. So when they unionize and flex their muscle to demand more pay, more benefits, more time off, etc, then it's the taxpayer that they are sticking it to. There is no market to balance things out, no competition to drive us out of business, so we have to pay more to the union thugs and we have no say in the matter. There is no end to their demands because the public checking account by way of borrowing is neverending, so they can drive up the cost of labor as high as they want without repurcussion. This is - in a word - WRONG! The idea of public workers unionizing to stick it to the taxpayers is such a repulsive thing that even FDR opposed public unions. FDR of all people.
Governor Walker is asking for several things in his bill. One is that public workers pay into their own retirement and health care funds. This goes into the "DUH" category. Anyone who opposes this is either a fool or a unionized public worker, or both.
He also wants taxpayers to have the power to vote - by referendum - on any public sector pay raise that exceeds the rate of inflation, thus shifting the negotiating power from the unions to those who actually foot the bill. Can you imagine a scenario where the public gets to decide on pay raises, and those decisions are based on the QUALITY of work that the public workers do? Can you imagine a system where public workers are actually held accountable for what they do? The unions hate that.
Another of Walker's proposals is to allow workers to choose whether or not they join the union. As it is now, public workers don't have a choice. Their dues are automatically deducted from their pay and given to the unions. The result is that public unions have become very wealthy and very powerful politically. In the 2008 election, no other single group donated more money to political campaigns than the public sector unions. All funded by our tax dollars.
So Walker would give workers the ability to choose to join in order to offset the added costs of contributing to pensions and health care funds. Naturally, this would weaken the unions because many people would opt out. That's bad for political clout and one of the reasons for such vocal opposition.
Finally, Walker would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions. Most union members will say this is what they oppose about the law. I say they are lying, or at least not being completely honest. They want to maintain leverage at the negotiating table, and I ask..."leverage against whom?" Do they have the right to drive up taxpayer costs by making their labor more expensive, and to do so without any voter say in the matter? Absolutely not. So this collective bargaining stuff is a bunch of garbage. You want collective bargaining, then get a private sector job and stick it to some schmuck corporate executive. What you call collective bargaining, I call extortion.
After all, why are unions necessary? Ask a unionized worker this and they'll say they must be united to protect themselves against the establishment, against corporate greed, against bosses and executives who wish to exploit their labor for capital gain. Fair enough. But, then, why must public workers be unionized? Aren't we the boss? And therefore are we, the taxpayers, the ones they seek to protect themselves against? Whatever happened to the idea that "we the people" make the rules around here and all must abide by them?
Isn't the Left that says education is a RIGHT? If it's a right then why are teachers allowed to impose their own costs on providing that right without repurcussion?
Isn't it the Left that says government can be trusted more so than the private sector? If this is true, then why are public unions even necessary? Why indeed. Obviously, Scott Walker has asked this question himself and come to the same conclusion, that public unions aren't necessary, that they serve a purpose meant to stiff the taxpayers and drive up costs for public services that WE THE PEOPLE will have to fund with no choice in the matter and no bargaining power whatsoever. That's not right and so he seeks to stop it. Union busting? I hope so. And I wish Walker would just come out and say it.
Why?
First, let me differentiate my opinions about private sector unions and public sector unions. To be clear, I don't agree with unionized labor at all. At best it is inefficient and incompetent - my own experience with union made goods will testify to that. At worst it is thuggery in the workplace. I don't think unionized labor has a place in a free market society because it's bad for competition. But if the private sector workers want to unionize then so be it. They have that right. Eventually, this is a self-defeating strategy. If a group of workers repeatedly pursue demands that raise the price of goods and services then the employer is ultimately robbed of their ability to compete effectively in the open market. Sooner or later the company dies (see GM and Chrysler) and everyone loses. At least, that's how it's supposed to work, until a deranged group of lawmakers use public money to bail out such companies, then EVERYONE truly loses, even those of us who have nothing to do with that company.
But public sector unions are different. The public workers are paid by the government, and thus the taxpayers. So when they unionize and flex their muscle to demand more pay, more benefits, more time off, etc, then it's the taxpayer that they are sticking it to. There is no market to balance things out, no competition to drive us out of business, so we have to pay more to the union thugs and we have no say in the matter. There is no end to their demands because the public checking account by way of borrowing is neverending, so they can drive up the cost of labor as high as they want without repurcussion. This is - in a word - WRONG! The idea of public workers unionizing to stick it to the taxpayers is such a repulsive thing that even FDR opposed public unions. FDR of all people.
Governor Walker is asking for several things in his bill. One is that public workers pay into their own retirement and health care funds. This goes into the "DUH" category. Anyone who opposes this is either a fool or a unionized public worker, or both.
He also wants taxpayers to have the power to vote - by referendum - on any public sector pay raise that exceeds the rate of inflation, thus shifting the negotiating power from the unions to those who actually foot the bill. Can you imagine a scenario where the public gets to decide on pay raises, and those decisions are based on the QUALITY of work that the public workers do? Can you imagine a system where public workers are actually held accountable for what they do? The unions hate that.
Another of Walker's proposals is to allow workers to choose whether or not they join the union. As it is now, public workers don't have a choice. Their dues are automatically deducted from their pay and given to the unions. The result is that public unions have become very wealthy and very powerful politically. In the 2008 election, no other single group donated more money to political campaigns than the public sector unions. All funded by our tax dollars.
So Walker would give workers the ability to choose to join in order to offset the added costs of contributing to pensions and health care funds. Naturally, this would weaken the unions because many people would opt out. That's bad for political clout and one of the reasons for such vocal opposition.
Finally, Walker would eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions. Most union members will say this is what they oppose about the law. I say they are lying, or at least not being completely honest. They want to maintain leverage at the negotiating table, and I ask..."leverage against whom?" Do they have the right to drive up taxpayer costs by making their labor more expensive, and to do so without any voter say in the matter? Absolutely not. So this collective bargaining stuff is a bunch of garbage. You want collective bargaining, then get a private sector job and stick it to some schmuck corporate executive. What you call collective bargaining, I call extortion.
After all, why are unions necessary? Ask a unionized worker this and they'll say they must be united to protect themselves against the establishment, against corporate greed, against bosses and executives who wish to exploit their labor for capital gain. Fair enough. But, then, why must public workers be unionized? Aren't we the boss? And therefore are we, the taxpayers, the ones they seek to protect themselves against? Whatever happened to the idea that "we the people" make the rules around here and all must abide by them?
Isn't the Left that says education is a RIGHT? If it's a right then why are teachers allowed to impose their own costs on providing that right without repurcussion?
Isn't it the Left that says government can be trusted more so than the private sector? If this is true, then why are public unions even necessary? Why indeed. Obviously, Scott Walker has asked this question himself and come to the same conclusion, that public unions aren't necessary, that they serve a purpose meant to stiff the taxpayers and drive up costs for public services that WE THE PEOPLE will have to fund with no choice in the matter and no bargaining power whatsoever. That's not right and so he seeks to stop it. Union busting? I hope so. And I wish Walker would just come out and say it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)