Tuesday, Scott Walker handily won the Recall Election in Wisconsin, as did Walker's Lieutenant Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch. The final result was Walker winning 53% to 45% and Kleefisch winning 53% to 46%. While it was hardly a landslide, it was most certainly a comfortable victory for both. Furthermore, of the GOP State Senators who were subject to a recall, three of four won by comfortable margins and the fourth is so close it hasn't been called yet.
Liberals, of course, are throwing fits. They're claiming the Koch brothers did it, this was a victory of "Citizens United over citizens of Wisconsin," claiming that Wisconsin just "refused change." Actually, Wisconsin did vote for change...it was conservative change to fiscal responsibility. According to liberals, this isn't change...because the only real change that counts is becoming more liberal (just ask them!) so when a state votes to be more fiscally responsible it doesn't count. More importantly, the citizens of Wisconsin...the very employers of these public sector unions, did speak. They just spoke in favor of conservative government.
The result was in stark contrast to the exit polls that were released at 9 pm. CNN's exit polling, for example, claimed that the recall was tied. I guess there was a little 8% whoops in their exit polling, huh? When the polls closed, all news outlets I could find said the race was "too close to call." That's interesting, considering the margin of victory, and how close that margin was to the Real Clear Politics Poll average pre-election.
And yet the Drive-By Media is claiming that, according to the same exit polls that claimed the recall race was tied and too close to call, that President Obama has a commanding lead over Governor Mitt Romney in the 2012 general election. If nothing else, this election should show, once again, that exit polls are essentially useless.
What do we take from this big win for conservatism?
One, as I just said, this tells us that exit polls are pointless. We can all conject as to why this is true: Perhaps it's because the Drive-By Media is using it's usual, wonderfully bad polling samples, or perhaps it's simply that Democrats are more likely to participate in an exit poll than Republicans? Either way, for the last eight years, these polls have shown to be very unreliable. (Remember in 2004, when Bob Shrum said "Let me be the first to call you Mr. President" to John Kerry?)
Two, this tells us that Wisconsin is committed to fiscal restraint! People are getting it. Conservatism works, and when conservatism is genuinely put into practice, it wins. Heck, Governor Walker GAINED GROUND from his 2010 election in this recall.
Three, irregardless of the Drive-By Media using the very same exit polls that were so patently wrong about the results for the recall, it shows that Barrack Obama is indeed vulnerable in Wisconsin. Why would the same people who upheld their election of Governor Walker and, presumably, validate his fiscal reforms, then turn around and sweep to victory the very President who has absolutely refused to consider reforms of this nature at all? Answer: They likely won't. And that my friends, is the best news the Wisconsin recall could present.
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
It's Time for the Public Sector Unions to Stop Being Selfish
It’s happening in Wisconsin, where the Democratic Party and the Public Unions* are doing their darndest to recall Governor Scott Walker. It doesn’t matter, of course, that the state of Wisconsin; by asking the unions to pay a small portion of their own pensions (an amount similar to what most private citizen’s 401k plans are matched by their company), asking them to pay a $10 copay for doctor visits (the rest of us pay upwards of $20) and some other modest reforms; has closed a massive budget gap and put Wisconsin on the right track.
Now those same unions want to recall Walker rather than (to borrow a favorite catch-phrase from the Left) “paying their fair share.” (By the way, I define “fair share” very differently. I define it as paying YOUR OWN SHARE that is for yourself.) Except those Unions aren’t even paying what the rest of us have to pay. That’s not good enough though. They’re just too selfish.
And now, friends, I’m going do something I swore I’d never do: I’m going to defend a Cuomo. Governor Andrew the Cuomo is trying to do something similar in my own state, New York. New York, like Wisconsin, is in an awful lot of trouble. Andrew the Cuomo is, unlike his father before him, a pragmatic man. He understands, like so few of his fellow liberal Democrats, that money doesn’t grow on trees, even if one convinces themselves it is really super-duper important. So he’s gone and passed a series of measures to cut $80 Billion from the New York state budget.
For about a month, the same unions have run commercials talking about how unfair it is, how unions have to stand up for their “rights.” (Because free pensions and making more than your employers, the people of New York State, is one’s right, apparently. Since we’re making up rights, I declare my right to baseball.) They’re telling tales about how 401k plans “failed” a few years ago. Actually, the only people who 401k plans failed were those who were foolish enough to be both close to retirement and yet still keep their money in high growth funds. For the rest of us, like those of us in our late twenties and early thirties, are buying into our 401k plans for pennies on the dollar and we’re going to see a phenomenal return in the future for our investments.
Both Governor Walker and Governor the Cuomo realize the truth. They’re different men. Governor Walker is a Tea Party Republican, Governor the Cuomo is a fairly reasonable liberal Democrat (in fairness, the Cuomo’s liberalism stands mostly on social issues). But both of them understand the reality and necessity of asking the REAL people who aren’t “paying their fair share,” the Unions. Both of these men realize that their states are going to continue to lose jobs to outsourcing if they don’t stop trying to take more and more money that still isn’t theirs from businesses. Not the kind of outsourcing you’re thinking about, friends, not to China and India and Mexico, but rather outsourcing to South Carolina, and Tennessee and Florida and other states that don’t think the purpose of those who have succeeded and started businesses is to buy votes for liberals.
It’s time for Public Sector Unions to stop being so selfish and demanding that their employers, the people of their states and of the nation, pay them exorbitant salaries beyond the employers ability to pay and beyond what similar private sector employees earn for similar work. I get it, Union members, it means you have to give up some of your current benefits. I understand. I went four years without a raise, by the way, thanks to this economy, meanwhile you’ve gotten four plus better benefits than I could dream of receiving. It’s time for Public Sector Unions to pay their legitimate fair share. It’s time for public sector unions to stop being selfish.
*Private Sector Unions, for now at least, you get a pass. In this blog my beef is with your public sector counterparts.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Right to Work Laws Shouldn't Even Be Necessary
Right to work: It’s a hot button issue in modern politics. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, several states have passed or are fighting to pass legislation to end mandatory union membership to work at a particular business. Those of you who were unaware that such union requirements exist are likely wondering why this practice is even legal. Think about it for a moment; what would Liberals say if Conservative organizations required a person to be a Christian to work a job, or a Republican, or a member of the Unofficial Star Wars In-Depth Analysis Club (1) to be employed at a job. They’d have a conniption (and probably claim the discussion of Jedi violates the nonexistent Separation of Church and State). Yet Liberals are also having a conniption because lawmakers are saying you can no longer require a person to be a member of a union to work a job if the employer is willing to hire that person.
By the way, this forced association wouldn’t be quite so bad if it wasn’t for the fact that there are mandatory dues required for membership. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, dues are fees charged to be a member of an organization). So individuals are required to join an organization and then pay for the right to be a part of an organization that they don’t necessarily want to be a part of in the first place.
Unions and their Liberal cronies in the Democrat Party are doing a good deal of whining about these laws, claiming that removing the mandatory membership requirements would take away their power base. My answer is too darn bad! If your organization needs to force people to be members to maintain your power base, you shouldn’t have that level of power in the first place! You have your power by forcing people to pay you without their consent. In a Democracy, power is not a right. It’s a privilege earned by having voluntary support from many people.
If you dust off a history book, you’ll discover that the original unions didn’t have mandatory membership or dues being deducted from payroll checks. I will grant that they served an important purpose in the 19th Century and early 20th Century (one that has ceased to be, by the way). Those unions happened organically. People chose to form unions and join them. They chose to pay dues to receive the benefits of union membership.
And no, requiring union membership is not the same as requiring certain levels of experience or education to obtain a job. Requiring a doctor to be board certified is done not to maintain the Medical Board’s influence but to ensure that those who are charged with our medical care are in fact trained professionals. Also, requiring a person to have a bachelor’s degree in accounting to work as an accountant is requiring a certain level of education. Being in a union is not an achieved standard. It’s an arbitrary requirement meant to maintain the power of that group.
Here’s the real crux of the issue: private organizations do not have a right to take money from people and force them to be members of a particular organization to obtain a job. These requirements by right ought to be illegal. This is an attempt to maintain an illegitimate power base. Right to work should not even need a discussion. We shouldn’t need a law to tell an organization they cannot force a person to join its ranks or pay dues. Period.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Unofficial Star Wars In-Depth Analysis Club meets at my apartment Monday evenings for about fifteen minutes and periodically at barbecues and game nights. Current membership is three. We then are joined by a few more people and become a small group Bible study on Mondays and the same few more people on the other occasions for enjoyable evenings. The group remains unofficial, although I doubt Kenny and Dustin would mind (names changed to protect the dorkily innocent).
By the way, this forced association wouldn’t be quite so bad if it wasn’t for the fact that there are mandatory dues required for membership. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, dues are fees charged to be a member of an organization). So individuals are required to join an organization and then pay for the right to be a part of an organization that they don’t necessarily want to be a part of in the first place.
Unions and their Liberal cronies in the Democrat Party are doing a good deal of whining about these laws, claiming that removing the mandatory membership requirements would take away their power base. My answer is too darn bad! If your organization needs to force people to be members to maintain your power base, you shouldn’t have that level of power in the first place! You have your power by forcing people to pay you without their consent. In a Democracy, power is not a right. It’s a privilege earned by having voluntary support from many people.
If you dust off a history book, you’ll discover that the original unions didn’t have mandatory membership or dues being deducted from payroll checks. I will grant that they served an important purpose in the 19th Century and early 20th Century (one that has ceased to be, by the way). Those unions happened organically. People chose to form unions and join them. They chose to pay dues to receive the benefits of union membership.
And no, requiring union membership is not the same as requiring certain levels of experience or education to obtain a job. Requiring a doctor to be board certified is done not to maintain the Medical Board’s influence but to ensure that those who are charged with our medical care are in fact trained professionals. Also, requiring a person to have a bachelor’s degree in accounting to work as an accountant is requiring a certain level of education. Being in a union is not an achieved standard. It’s an arbitrary requirement meant to maintain the power of that group.
Here’s the real crux of the issue: private organizations do not have a right to take money from people and force them to be members of a particular organization to obtain a job. These requirements by right ought to be illegal. This is an attempt to maintain an illegitimate power base. Right to work should not even need a discussion. We shouldn’t need a law to tell an organization they cannot force a person to join its ranks or pay dues. Period.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Unofficial Star Wars In-Depth Analysis Club meets at my apartment Monday evenings for about fifteen minutes and periodically at barbecues and game nights. Current membership is three. We then are joined by a few more people and become a small group Bible study on Mondays and the same few more people on the other occasions for enjoyable evenings. The group remains unofficial, although I doubt Kenny and Dustin would mind (names changed to protect the dorkily innocent).
Friday, February 25, 2011
Dear Wisconsin Unions: We had a Discussion - It Was Called an Election
As Wisconsin Teachers Union members continue to defy the will of the people, one of their claims has continued to be "we just want to have a real discussion about this issue." I have news for these union thugs: We had a discussion. It was called a pre-election race! We had arbitrators decide this issue. They are called voters! Those arbitrators decided, and it was called an election! The problem these unions have is not that there was no discussion, their problem is they LOST the discussion.
Both the United States of America and the state of Wisconsin (and all states in the nation) have representative governments. Every two, four, or six years (depending on the office), the people of each state and of the country have the ability to vote in representatives to varying offices. Along with those elections, certain groups of varying interests have the ability to convince the taxpayers that their interests should be supported and/or protected. Clearly, the unions did not convince the voters in Wisconsin of their goals.
So now the Wisconsin Teachers Union wants to ignore the results of the election and call for compromise. I don't believe I'm alone in the world in believing that, if the chosen representatives of the Unions won the governor's mansion and the Wisconsin state houses (that would be "Democrats" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL), there would be no talk of compromise. Rather, I believe we would be hearing something similar to, "Elections have consequences, and we won." (Palm Beach Countiers - that's a quote from Barrack Obama).
It's the oldest story in the book. When Democrats win, they want to implement their agenda 100%. When Republicans win, Democrats expect to be compromised with (and receive 50% of what they want). I wrote an entire post on this a few weeks back. (1) Feel free to go back and read it. The fact is these unions lost the discussion before the voters, and NOW they want compromise. I say they can't have what they desire because THE MONEY ISN'T THERE!
Herein lies the crux of the issue, one that far too many well meaning liberals miss. In frequent debates with liberals here, on my twitter account, on facebook, etc, it seems every single entitlement is seen as "this is the one you can't touch, it's too important." I'm sorry, but it's time to take a ride to reality. Rush Limbaugh calls it, "Literalville." I call it The Real World.
We who live in The Real World don't see the world in ideal situations. We don't get to pretend the money exists if we can convince ourselves that the issue is really, really, super duper important. Liberals seem to honestly believe that if something is important enough you can find the money, usually by taxing the "rich" more. It does not matter to them that the average person in the top tax bracket pays over 50% of their income between federal, state, and local taxes...they should be paying more, because the government "needs" it.
Of course, this plan to simply tax more doesn't usually work the way liberals predict it to in their rosy scenarios. These corporations...employers really (that's people who hire others for jobs, for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL)...have a choice. They do not NEED to continue to do business in the state where they're being taxed to death. They can leave New York, California, Illinois etc and do business in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, for example, where the climate for business is far better. Heck, they can do business in Mexico and not pay much in taxes at all! It stands to note that most of these businesses would RATHER be producing here in America...but not if they are going to lose money doing it. Businesses are owned by free individuals. Free individuals who do not have to keep their business in the place where the climate causes them to lose money. And they won't.
See, that's what liberals forget. People don't start a business to be nice, to give you a paycheck, to give you medical insurance or other benefits. People start a business because they believe that the product or service they can provide can be sold for more money that it costs to produce, generating a profit. You liberals, please read this next sentence carefully, ok? THIS GOAL OF TURNING A PROFIT IS NOT EVIL!
So here's what happens when these businesses are taxed into oblivion, they leave those states for another state or another country, and they pay $0 in taxes instead of whatever amount they were paying to that state. And if they leave the country entirely, now not only have we lost all the tax revenue they were paying, but the jobs that go with their company, and the tax revenue from every employee of their company! How does that help?
Okay, Chris, what does this have to do with Wisconsin? Here's what. The solution of taxing the "rich" more because they can afford it is not only immoral, because, as I've stated before, it's not the government's money to begin with, (2) it's also counter-intuitive if your goal is to close a budget gap (as I just explained in the last paragraph)! Besides, has any government ever received more money without finding someplace else to spend it? Look at what happened when Reagan doubled net tax revenues during the '80s. The Democrat controlled legislature proceeded to spend $1.80 for every $1 brought in. The real problem, as Reagan once said, "is not that we tax to little, the problem is we spend too much."
So here we are in Wisconsin. The Teacher's Union doesn't like the fact that they are being asked to pay for a mere 7% of their TOTAL pension (for the record, the rest of us are lucky if our company MATCHES up to 10% of our 401k contributions) and 12% of their medical insurance (the rest of us pay 20% on average). They also are pitching a fit because Governor Walker wants to eliminate their right to collective bargaining on all issues EXCEPT wages. What does this last bit mean? It means Walker does not want the Unions to have the power to negotiate such things as:
- Penalties for disciplinary action: In other words, the Unions can no longer decide that the proper penalty for snorting cocaine in the teacher's lounge should be a written warning after 3 offenses. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's what is known as an "exaggeration.")
- Automatic Tenure: In many states, teachers are AUTOMATICALLY given tenure after 3 years of service. In other words, can't be fired unless they blow up the school WHILE snorting cocaine, having sex with a student AND punching a different student in the face ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
- Free Viagara Included in Medical Coverage: THIS ONE IS NOT AN EXAGERRATION. THIS IS REAL!
Those are just two examples. My point? These unions have been receiving benefits far beyond what is reasonable for years. They've had a good run. Now that it's time to give up the levels of benefits they have, which they probably shouldn't have had to begin with; the unions throw a tantrum, all the while pretending they are actually upset about Walker "not having a discussion with them on it."
Furthermore, the people who were not convinced were the employers of the Union, the people of Wisconsin! These are the people who pay your salary. These same people who, as your employers, make less money than you and receive less lucrative benefits than you. This isn't about "collective bargaining." This is about the right of the taxpayers to say no to public sector unions! Because the unions AREN'T bargaining with their employers! They're bargaining with the elected officials of the employers.
Those employers (again, that's "the taxpayers in Wisconsin" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) are then REQUIRED BY LAW to pay whatever those elected officials agree to pay you. It's not the same thing as private sector unions! Time to accept that this is NOT the same thing as the Teamsters Union bargaining with Mott's Applesauce.
I don't believe I'm alone in the world for not believing the Union when they claim there issue is "they weren't asked." I repeat what I said in the beginning of this post: We had a discussion. It was called an election! We had arbitrators decide this issue. They are called voters! We had arbitrators. They are called voters! It was required of the Union, and every other special interest in the world, to convince voters to support the candidate that they felt would protect their interests. They failed. You lost, Teacher's Union. Now accept the will of the people!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Civility & Compromise: Only Expected When Democrats Out of Power...
(2) It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER
Both the United States of America and the state of Wisconsin (and all states in the nation) have representative governments. Every two, four, or six years (depending on the office), the people of each state and of the country have the ability to vote in representatives to varying offices. Along with those elections, certain groups of varying interests have the ability to convince the taxpayers that their interests should be supported and/or protected. Clearly, the unions did not convince the voters in Wisconsin of their goals.
So now the Wisconsin Teachers Union wants to ignore the results of the election and call for compromise. I don't believe I'm alone in the world in believing that, if the chosen representatives of the Unions won the governor's mansion and the Wisconsin state houses (that would be "Democrats" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL), there would be no talk of compromise. Rather, I believe we would be hearing something similar to, "Elections have consequences, and we won." (Palm Beach Countiers - that's a quote from Barrack Obama).
It's the oldest story in the book. When Democrats win, they want to implement their agenda 100%. When Republicans win, Democrats expect to be compromised with (and receive 50% of what they want). I wrote an entire post on this a few weeks back. (1) Feel free to go back and read it. The fact is these unions lost the discussion before the voters, and NOW they want compromise. I say they can't have what they desire because THE MONEY ISN'T THERE!
Herein lies the crux of the issue, one that far too many well meaning liberals miss. In frequent debates with liberals here, on my twitter account, on facebook, etc, it seems every single entitlement is seen as "this is the one you can't touch, it's too important." I'm sorry, but it's time to take a ride to reality. Rush Limbaugh calls it, "Literalville." I call it The Real World.
We who live in The Real World don't see the world in ideal situations. We don't get to pretend the money exists if we can convince ourselves that the issue is really, really, super duper important. Liberals seem to honestly believe that if something is important enough you can find the money, usually by taxing the "rich" more. It does not matter to them that the average person in the top tax bracket pays over 50% of their income between federal, state, and local taxes...they should be paying more, because the government "needs" it.
Of course, this plan to simply tax more doesn't usually work the way liberals predict it to in their rosy scenarios. These corporations...employers really (that's people who hire others for jobs, for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL)...have a choice. They do not NEED to continue to do business in the state where they're being taxed to death. They can leave New York, California, Illinois etc and do business in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, for example, where the climate for business is far better. Heck, they can do business in Mexico and not pay much in taxes at all! It stands to note that most of these businesses would RATHER be producing here in America...but not if they are going to lose money doing it. Businesses are owned by free individuals. Free individuals who do not have to keep their business in the place where the climate causes them to lose money. And they won't.
See, that's what liberals forget. People don't start a business to be nice, to give you a paycheck, to give you medical insurance or other benefits. People start a business because they believe that the product or service they can provide can be sold for more money that it costs to produce, generating a profit. You liberals, please read this next sentence carefully, ok? THIS GOAL OF TURNING A PROFIT IS NOT EVIL!
So here's what happens when these businesses are taxed into oblivion, they leave those states for another state or another country, and they pay $0 in taxes instead of whatever amount they were paying to that state. And if they leave the country entirely, now not only have we lost all the tax revenue they were paying, but the jobs that go with their company, and the tax revenue from every employee of their company! How does that help?
Okay, Chris, what does this have to do with Wisconsin? Here's what. The solution of taxing the "rich" more because they can afford it is not only immoral, because, as I've stated before, it's not the government's money to begin with, (2) it's also counter-intuitive if your goal is to close a budget gap (as I just explained in the last paragraph)! Besides, has any government ever received more money without finding someplace else to spend it? Look at what happened when Reagan doubled net tax revenues during the '80s. The Democrat controlled legislature proceeded to spend $1.80 for every $1 brought in. The real problem, as Reagan once said, "is not that we tax to little, the problem is we spend too much."
So here we are in Wisconsin. The Teacher's Union doesn't like the fact that they are being asked to pay for a mere 7% of their TOTAL pension (for the record, the rest of us are lucky if our company MATCHES up to 10% of our 401k contributions) and 12% of their medical insurance (the rest of us pay 20% on average). They also are pitching a fit because Governor Walker wants to eliminate their right to collective bargaining on all issues EXCEPT wages. What does this last bit mean? It means Walker does not want the Unions to have the power to negotiate such things as:
- Penalties for disciplinary action: In other words, the Unions can no longer decide that the proper penalty for snorting cocaine in the teacher's lounge should be a written warning after 3 offenses. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's what is known as an "exaggeration.")
- Automatic Tenure: In many states, teachers are AUTOMATICALLY given tenure after 3 years of service. In other words, can't be fired unless they blow up the school WHILE snorting cocaine, having sex with a student AND punching a different student in the face ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
- Free Viagara Included in Medical Coverage: THIS ONE IS NOT AN EXAGERRATION. THIS IS REAL!
Those are just two examples. My point? These unions have been receiving benefits far beyond what is reasonable for years. They've had a good run. Now that it's time to give up the levels of benefits they have, which they probably shouldn't have had to begin with; the unions throw a tantrum, all the while pretending they are actually upset about Walker "not having a discussion with them on it."
Furthermore, the people who were not convinced were the employers of the Union, the people of Wisconsin! These are the people who pay your salary. These same people who, as your employers, make less money than you and receive less lucrative benefits than you. This isn't about "collective bargaining." This is about the right of the taxpayers to say no to public sector unions! Because the unions AREN'T bargaining with their employers! They're bargaining with the elected officials of the employers.
Those employers (again, that's "the taxpayers in Wisconsin" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) are then REQUIRED BY LAW to pay whatever those elected officials agree to pay you. It's not the same thing as private sector unions! Time to accept that this is NOT the same thing as the Teamsters Union bargaining with Mott's Applesauce.
I don't believe I'm alone in the world for not believing the Union when they claim there issue is "they weren't asked." I repeat what I said in the beginning of this post: We had a discussion. It was called an election! We had arbitrators decide this issue. They are called voters! We had arbitrators. They are called voters! It was required of the Union, and every other special interest in the world, to convince voters to support the candidate that they felt would protect their interests. They failed. You lost, Teacher's Union. Now accept the will of the people!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Civility & Compromise: Only Expected When Democrats Out of Power...
(2) It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)