Casual Friday Edition

I got into hot water a couple weeks back when I suggested on Facebook that Stormtroopers could wear their Khaki armor and loafers on Casual Friday.  Yoda in particular, seemed to take offense at the thought.  I tried to give voice to the notion that even clones are people too.  But to some, they are simply cattle to be herded.  Please add your own thoughts in the comment section on this important issue.

>>     I wrote a post, Tell Them About the Twinkie, to highlight that arguing over non-defense discretionary spending is only a tiny battle in a much bigger war on spending.  Jeffrey Anderson at the Weekly Standard blog tells us that mandatory spending has now swallowed the entire Federal Revenue,

We have now gotten to the point — as I noted yesterday — where if national defense, interstate highways, national parks, homeland security, and all other discretionary programs somehow became absolutely free, we’d still have a budget deficit. The White House Office of Management and Budget projects that in the current fiscal year (2011), mandatory spending alone will exceed all federal receipts. So even if we didn’t spend a single cent on discretionary programs, we still wouldn’t be able to balance our budget this year — let alone pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt that we have already accumulated.

Speaker of the House John Boehner has said that he thinks people just don't understand the issue.  “People in Washington assume that Americans understand how big the problem is,” he said. “But most Americans don’t have a clue.”  Cutting a few billion in foreign aid or increasing taxes cannot fix this problem.  Only adjusting the future of entitlement programs can.

Representative Paul Ryan is the point man in the House on tackling this problem.  Ryan told Mike Huckabee on Fox News. “If we do it now, we do it on our terms, meaning we don’t change anything for people in and near retirement. But if we wait, if we keep delaying and kicking the can down the road, then it will look like Europe — bitter austerity. Cuts will happen to current seniors, and that’s what we want to avoid.”

Delaying action is no longer an option.  Well, technically it is an option, but only if you consider retiring with no savings an option.

>>     Over at NRO, Conrad Black covers a lot of ground in his article, On Libya, the US Is a Pitiful Giant.  He compares the heroic Japanese response in their current fight for survival to the horrid response in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.  Flaws at the national, state and local level in New Orleans to be sure, but Americans do not come out to well in the comparison.

Black then goes on to blister President Obama's weak response in Libya.

As for Libya, there is room for legitimate debate over what to do there, but I cannot believe that there is a single conscient American who has followed these matters who is not appalled by the grotesquerie of American policy fumbling that has stalked, wreathed, and bedeviled this issue. The president, draped in what is becoming infamous sanctimony, said, of Qaddafi, “He has lost all legitimacy and he must go. . . . The best revolutions are organic. . . . We are not sure.” Weeks pass, thousands are massacred, and the White House has no standing to assess the legitimacy of foreign governments under challenge and portentously to asseverate moral imperatives, and then waffle over the course cried out for by the majority of Libyans and urged by the European Union and the Arab League, representing the entire adjoining regions. This president (of the United States) famously said in Prague in 2009, “Words must mean something” in reference to arms control, which he has pursued in regard to the United States but not to Iran or North Korea. He was correct; they must, when uttered by the holder of his great office, but they don’t, at this sadly disappointing time, in arms control or the assistance of the forces of oppressed legitimacy.

I remember past Presidents agreeing with my father when he told me never to say anything I didn't intend to back up.

"If you're gonna talk the talk, then you better walk the walk"

"Speak softly and carry a big stick"

All over the mid-east people are dying for the cause of liberty, while we continue to talk....to witness....to watch....to do nothing. 

>>     I'm still holding out caution on Japan's nuclear crisis until all the fact are in.  By their design, even a total meltdown should be able to be contained.  A large issue is the lack of water and the particles in the available water.  Clean de-mineralized water will not react with the fuel and thus any steam would carry little radiation.  But saltwater and other impurities in the improvised cooling water will react and release larger quantities of radiation in the steam that is released.  Meltdown or not, the containing vessel should keep the fuel from being directly released into the atmosphere, which is what happened at Chernobyl.  But as I said, I await the facts before making a call on this situation.

>>     Waiting on those facts doesn't mean I can't share a couple of tidbits.

First, it has been noted by a researcher working for the World Health Organization, that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself with regards to radiation.  Gateway Pundit has the story.

a top expert on radiation says that fear of radiation is a bigger health threat than radiation itself.  Technorati.com reported:

A top expert on radiation, doing studies for the World Health Organization, reports that fear of radiation exposure has caused more health problems than the radiation itself. Other experts on psychological effects of radiation agree. In addition to the fear of the effects of the radiation, survivors are stigmatized by their society, increasing stress and feelings of isolation. This stigmatization can interfere with the survivors getting proper health care, jobs, and economic stability. Others turn away from them, fearing that association with those who have been exposed to radiation can be “catching.” Experts who have studied these impacts at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, say that the fear and stigmatization causes so much stress in the people affected that, overall, the stress is more damaging to health than the radiation itself.

Someone needs to forward this to Shepard Smith on FOX who has been fear-mongering all week.

The other side of the issue is brought to us by Newsbusters,

The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective. To that end, here's an interesting fact you won't be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.

You read that right. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.

The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.

As I already have stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis in Japan.  I just found both bits of information interesting.

>>     The House of Representatives voted to defund NPR today.  It has no chance of passing the Senate, so NPR is safe.  But why?  I ask the same question of PBS - why?  What need is there for the government to fund a TV and radio network in America?  Funding the Voice of America abroad I can understand.  Our nation should have a global agenda that will be furthered by a variety of mediums.  But domestically, do we want our federal government promoting an agenda through the media?

I know, I know....NPR and PBS are independent voices that do not receive their orders from the government.  That's fine and I accept that.  So tell me again why we fund them.  What purpose do they serve our government and the taxpayers if they do not take their orders from them?  If they provided a service that no one else in the marketplace wished to provide, this would be more acceptable.  But unlike say the Water Department, NPR and PBS have dozens of competitors doing pretty much exactly what they are doing.

If the Water Department in your town shut down tomorrow, there would be reprecussions to the taxpayers. that would be felt immediately.  But if NPR and PBS had really been defunded today, would you notice if you weren't told.  NPR and PBS are quality products that will not have any trouble finding the funds to continue to operate.  In fact, they might be surprised at just how well they flourish when they are finally dumped into the private sector. 

If Big Bird and Kermit can profit at the toy store and the movie theaters; on DVDs and CDS, I don't think there is any need to put them on the endangered list when they no longer receive my tax dollars.  Now shows like the Delicious Dish may be another matter....

>>     It's time for March Madness.  Sadly, my Mizzou Tigers bowed out about halfway through the second half Thursday night.  I did call the Richmond and Gonzaga upsets, but I had the wrong #13 seed - I picked Princeton over Kentucky.  Morehouse State's upset over Louisville will hurt through the weekend as I had the Cardinals making it to the Sweet 16.

Perhaps I would have made the right selection if I had more time to ponder my choices.  I was off work Monday and Tuesday, but I had a pretty full plate at the house.  I still had a few tax returns to file for some family and friends.  I installed a new gas oven for the beautiful Dawn.  I spent many hours poring over several years of healthcare data and preparing a presentation.  I cooked dinner one night, while my wife did the other.  Somewhere in there I filed the financial aid application for my soon to be collegiate student and prepared some bills for payments.

Suffice it to say, that it wasn't until late on Wednesday before I had any real opportunity to put some thought into my bracket selections before heading off for my job on the overnight shift.  When I arrived home Thursday morning, I quickly jumped on the computer to enter my picks into ESPN's bracket challenge before heading to bed for a few hours sleep before the first games began.

Busy as that may sound, I would gladly follow my routine over and over rather than be in the unenviable position that our President finds himself.  The crisis in Japan, the critical situation in Libya as the UN debated taking military action, the still developing movements in other mid-east nations, the war in Afghanistan, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, global terrorism, the budget battles in Congress along with the still weak economy and raging unemployment would seem to be overwhelming.

Yet, apparently Obama not only had enough time to spend on his bracket - which I can understand (everyone needs a break) - but he had time to go out of his way and record a spot for the networks to cover his picks and analysis.  Look, I can easily see the importance of symbolic sports gestures - throwing out the first pitch at Major League games, phone calls and White House visits for champions.  But surely in the middle of all that is happening at the moment, there is something else the President of the United States should be doing.  After all, this is the man who felt it necessary to fly across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago's Olympic bid.  Isn't there somewhere else he should be right now?  The UN just approved military action in Libya, but it may be too late for that rebellion.  Maybe Obama could have sped the UN process up in person rather than taping a fluff piece.  Playing golf while the world falls apart just doesn't make for a good picture.  (Or does it?)

I don't really know.  I just know how powerless I feel as I view world events and the one person on earth who has more power at his disposal to affect them, seems distracted. 

Last week Obama said that it would be easier to be President of China because the world doesn't hang on his every word.  Years ago, when the Soviet Union still stood as a world power, President Reagan wanted his every word to be heard - from the halls of the Kremlin to the smallest cells of their gulags.  With his words, he sought to strike fear in the despot and bring hope to the oppressed.  Sadly, this is sorely missing from Obama.

The President needs to stop talking.  He needs to say something and he needs to mean what he says.

NUTS

*  Harry Reid, rejected making any changes to Social Security when questioned by Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.  "Two decades from now, I'm willing to take a look at it," said Reid, 71, in an interview to air Wednesday evening on MSNBC. "But I'm not willing to take a look at it right now."  [h/t The Hill.com]

*  Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi apparently has had a memory lapse of the past several years as she proclaims that "Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility...".  For the record, I would take issue with that statement from a member of either party that has been in office over the past decade.  Ed Morrissey at HOTAIR attempts to remind Mrs. Pelosi,

Not only did Democrats under her Speakership raise discretionary spending 18% in three years, not only did she pass a Pay-Go law and then fail to adhere to it even once, Pelosi became the first Speaker since Watergate to fail to pass a budget resolution for a fiscal year.  In 2010, despite having a 77-seat majority in the House, a Senate which her party held by 18 seats, and a Democrat in the White House, Pelosi failed — or refused — to pass a budget for FY2011.  Instead, she pushed continuing resolutions in order to hide spending until after the midterms, and failed even then to pass a budget.

*  Donald Trump made news during his recent Good Morning America appearance as the Daily Caller recounts,

On Thursday’s “Good Morning America,” Donald Trump questioned whether or not President Obama was born in the United States, and pushed back on the notion that others who question President Obama’s birthplace are idiots.

Regarding questions surrounding Obama’s birth, Trump said:

Everybody that even gives any hint of being a birther…they label them as an idiot.  Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy.  I was a really good student at the best school in the country.  The reason I have a little doubt — just a little — is because he grew up and nobody knew him.  …Nobody knows who he is until later in his life.  It’s very strange. The whole thing is very strange.

Can we kill two birds with this one?  If not for the entertainment value, I would be happy to be rid of The Donald and I would very much like to be rid of the whole birther issue.  Can this be like matter and anti-matter where both are annhilated as they come into contact?  It's just a question.

*  The largest story not being reported by the mainstream press remains the death threats made against Republicans in Wisconsin.  Read Lee Stranahan's story at the Huffington Post.  Given the press' accusations that the Tea Party people are dangerous and violent extremists,

Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

*  In today's edition, I have two bits questioning President Obama's efforts and abilities, so I guess I can be included in the nuts section.  It's just exasperating to see such a failure of leadership.  But don't take my word for it.  This is what is being reported by Joshua Hersh at The Atlantic,

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits. 

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

I'm not often inclined to agree with Secretary Clinton.  If this means I'm nuts, so be it.

Please do your part.  Give a hoot, don't pollute.  Be informed before you argue.  Spend more time listening than talking (two ears, one mouth).  Kids eat free on Tuesday.

God Bless.

Casual Friday Edition

*    Our prayers go out to the people of Japan along with the other coastal areas that may soon be affected by today's earthquake.  I really should say earthquakes, plural.  From Gateway Pundit

So far there have been 18 aftershocks: 8.9, 6.4, 6.4, 6.8, 7.1, 6.3, 6.3, 5.8, 5.9, 6.3, 6.1, 6.1, 5.9, 5.8, 5.7, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2.

The earthquake in Haiti last year registered at 7.0.

*     As I told everyone to expect, blogging has been light this week due to my trip to Jefferson City.  Conversations, discussions, arguments along with drinking often goes long into the night in our state capitol.  I'm not much on that last item, but when the other three are happening I'm having fun.

I spent a good amount of time talking with as many of the State Senators as I could, to express my opposition to Senator Ridgeway's Right to Work bill.  Economic arguments aside for the moment, I'm fighting this bill for three very rational reasons that my fellow Republicans can understand.

1. Illegal immigration - Right to Work states have a far greater presence of illegal immigrants.  Until the federal government enforces our nation's borders, this will not change.
2. Public Unions - I'm in favor of restricting the Public Employee Unions collective bargaining.  I believe all Americans can understand the conservative position on this issue when they can separate how they see private and public unions.  In attempting to restrict Private Unions, the distinction becomes less clear and hurts the taxpayers.
3. Politics - Pushing Right to Work can only succeed as a ballot proposition.  A ballot proposition will bring Democrat voters out in force, especially union voters.  Winning a ballot initiative while losing the Republican majority will end with the repeal of Right to Work in the next legislative session.  In a swing state such as Missouri, it's a no-win issue for Republicans.

*    Speaking of Public Employee Unions....  I find it difficult for a group who is failing in their sworn duties to the people of Wisconsin, while hiding illegally in another state, in order to avoid the results of last year's election to call what happened this week "undemocratic".

Governor Walker wanted to have a full budget appropriations bill, but due to the lack of a quorum of members, the appropriations elements of the bill were removed allowing the bill to pass by simple majority.  This is the opposite of undemocratic.  The majority passed a bill - flat out and simple.  The minority failed in their effort to hijack the process through illegitimate means.  Their only complaint is that they didn't get their way.  That's democracy in action.

Last year, the Republicans and Tea Party didn't get their way on Healthcare Reform because they were in the minority.  After the vote was over, there were no riots and cries of the end of democracy despite a few controversial legislative moves.  Instead conservatives took their argument to the voters and made historic gains in the next election.  That is how democracy works. 

When we lose, we fight our battles at the polls, not in the streets or in the halls of the capitol.  This is a democracy, not a thugocracy.

*    Speaking of the halls of the capitol....    While in the capitol, I spent a lot of time talking with my fellow union leaders and found to my dismay that everything I had to say was news to them.  Generally, my positions reside well on the conservative side of the spectrum, while union leaders are usually found on the opposite.  As we discussed many of the issues before Congress I found that even the well read and knowledgeable leaders of the left were absolutely clueless on the true positions of conservatives.  I won't go into it now, but I will soon post on the Myths about Republicans/Conservatives.  To all my Democrat friends - please look for it.

Nuts

*    Jack Lew, Director - Office of Management and Budget writes in USA Today that the Social Security Trust Fund is solvent until 2037.  Charles Krauthammer takes Director Lew to task for this fraudulent statement.  He writes at National Review,

The Social Security trust fund is a fiction...[OMB report] “The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the government’s ability to pay benefits.” 

....when Jack Lew tells you that there are trillions in this lockbox that keep the system solvent until 2037, he is perpetrating a fiction certified as such by his own OMB. What happens when you retire? Your Social Security will come out of the taxes and borrowing of that fiscal year.

To understand the size of the issue read my post Tell Them About the Twinkie

*     Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota took issue with Representative Peter King's hearings on Radical Islamist groups.  Rep. Ellison made his point by crying while telling a lie.  When the facts are not on your side, just make stuff up.  Gateway Pundit has the story.

*     Bad news for anyone holding out hope that Democrats will be serious about cutting the deficit.  In arguing against the Republicans budget cutting proposals, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, said [h/t Robert Costa, NRO],

“The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1 … eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts,” said Reid. “These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.”

Our nation's deficit this year will be over $1.5 trillion, we're literally broke, the states are going broke, the Republicans seek to cut a lousy $61 billion of a $3.5 trillion budget, and the leader of the Democrats refuses to accept the loss of a cowboy poetry festival.  When an animated aardvark and a cowboy poetry festival are unacceptable cuts, you are being completely unserious.

*     Ken Salazar, Interior Department Secretary told Congress that oil production in the gulf remained at an all-time high.  He backed this up by noting the number of oil rigs in the gulf had risen.  What he didn't bother to tell Congress was how many of those rigs were currently operating.  Check out the Energy Tomorrow blog and you will find that before the oil spill, 55 rotary drills were in operation, but only 25 were operating last week. [h/t Gateway Pundit]

*     Nobel-prize-winning-economist-turned-partisan-hack-Paul-Krugman, says that America is not broke as long as they can still borrow money.  Isn't that what led to the financial crash in 2008?  Some economist, huh? [h/t Newsbusters]

*     Just try and imagine President Reagan saying anything like this. 

“Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’”

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard took the words right out of my mouth when he commented on the President's current job.

It’s a tough job—maybe tougher than being president of China. But Barack Obama ran for president of the United States. Maybe he should start behaving as one.

Some days I despair.  When will we have the opportunity to have a man like Reagan lead us again?

Do you want to know how proud I am to say I grew up while he was President?

I often wear a Reagan shirt to my Union conferences and meetings.  When you're right, it doesn't matter who thinks you're wrong.

The Return of the Taxpayer

For reasons, both good and bad, I have chosen to go for the trilogy.  I will write one more lengthy post concerning the public unions.  There are great challenges to the third segment in a trilogy.  Often the source material has been nearly exhausted and with the loss of beloved characters in the second act, bitter feelings remain.  Additionally, as the story arc leads to its ultimate climax, all story threads must be woven together to create something larger than their individual parts.  “The visual fabric [must be] maintained while the metaphor plays on different levels.”^*  Not only must there be a conclusion, but one must feel that the journey has been worth the effort.

* Bonus points if you recognize the quote

As we learned from Randy in Scream 3, a true trilogy is all about going back to the beginning and learning something that wasn’t true at the get-go.  Also, there are certain rules for the concluding chapter of a trilogy.  One, the [villain] is a super human.  Two, anyone, including the main character, can die. Number three, the past will come back to bite us in the [posterior]. Whatever we think we know about the past, forget it.  The past is not at rest.  The sins of the past are about to break out and destroy us.  The rules say, some of us ain’t gonna make it.
 

During the Great Depression, business owners found that the high unemployment gave them a lever that could be used on their workforce.  It was this unfair imbalance that drove the labor movement as well as the governments need to stimulate the economy that resulted in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.  It was passed, but not without controversy.

In the 1920’s, the movement to organize had run afoul of anti-trust laws.  The mood changed following the economic troubles of the 1930’s.  During times of high employment and high earnings, workers had leverage.  But when employment falls below a certain point, the balance of power would shift to the employer.  The NLRA was created to establish a balance between the worker and the owner allowing for the workplace relationship to stabilize.  Further legislation has cemented some of the labor movement’s agenda in covering even the non-union workforce in America.

The slow decrease in the membership of private-sector unions is a direct result of the success of the unions in establishing certain standards to the employee/employer relationship.  Workers no longer needs to join a union to enjoy a standard 40 hour work week, overtime pay, paid holidays and vacation time and enjoy other benefits such as healthcare and a retirement fund.  As long as the threat of unionization is present, employers will usually seek to treat workers fairly.

I am a member of the negotiating committee for my local.  Our contract ends this year.  My fellow members and I understand that without a viable company, the contract is meaningless.  But with a fair agreement, we know that when the company prospers, we will prosper too.  It’s a win-win for both the workers and ownership.

But today’s crisis is putting that relationship into jeopardy.  Even now, our state has legislation pending that would make it a Right-to-Work state.  Management at our company is opposed to this, seeing that it would  put them at an economic disadvantage to newer competitors.  Not everyone will agree but the voters will decide the matter since our collective bargaining rights are statutory in nature.

Unfortunately, the public unions in Wisconsin have failed to understand this.  The anti-democracy forces have spent the past week forming mass protests in Madison.  The elected Democrats in their Senate have left the state.  Whatever my opinion of it, the will of the voters should not be blocked by force or cowardice.  As many have pointed out, the protests in the mid-east seek democracy, while the protest in the mid-west seek to block democracy.  This is shameful.

Like the Trilogy rules state, anyone can be killed.  Any look at the long-term finances of the federal, state and local governments can tell you a change is coming.  Whether we make the choices now or wait till the last dollar has been spent, a day of reckoning is coming.  There is no way to avoid the truth, but it doesn’t mean it has to end in this Mexican Standoff that currently exists in Wisconsin.  If the public unions, both there and other states, wish to make their last stand moment, so be it.  But as long as the private unions are there to hold their hand, we will be caught in the cross-fire. 

Governor Walker, far from wanting to bust the unions, has offered a middle ground.  The response has been an offer to give up the money, but not the bargaining rights.  What they have yet to see is that the money isn’t the problem, it’s just a symptom.  Kill the monster, take the money, but the beast will rise again.  Walker’s goal is to kill any future resurrection of what is wrong today.

In light of our last Trilogy rule, we now go back to the beginning of our story – the balance of power in the employee/employer relationship - to discover something that wasn't true from the get-go.  The NLRA gave workers the right to fight their exploitation at the hands of ownership.  But government workers cannot be exploited since they are also part of ownership.

Collective bargaining depends on an adverserial relationship between employee/employer. As David Denholm put it,

Unions view the employer-employee relationship as an adversarial one. Unions believe, or at least want their members to think, that employers are by their nature exploitative and that without the collective power of the union, the unorganized individual employee is helpless against the various forms of capital formation which employers represent.

While this may be true in the private sector, there is no reason to believe that it would be true in the public sector. The private sector is governed by an economic incentive – the profit motive. This system of economics has provided Americans with more goods and services, and a higher standard of living, than any other economic system in the world. But it is not applicable to many areas of the public sector of our economy.

Competition and the profit motive are at the heart of the union contention that employers are exploitative. That viewpoint leads the unions to an adversarial relationship. The absence of competition and profit motive from the public sector should cause us to then ask whether an adversarial relationship is necessary or desirable in public sector employer-employee relations.

The government by its very nature is monoplistic in providing society essential services.  Any services not essential, should of course not be offered by the state.  Unfortunately, some are.  The necessity for those services are now being used as the lever against their fellow citizens for whom they serve, while politicians, without a profit motive and dependant on votes from these citizens, have an incentive to keep these workers happy.

Since Wisconsin gave government workers collective bargaining rights,  total compensation (pay and benefits) and employment has risen faster than the private sector and is now higher.  Some of this is due to the often inverted supply/demand in the public sector.  In an economic downturn, tax receipts will fall, but demand for government services rise.  A more recent effect has also been the stimulus spending in which the Democrats in Washington sought to repay the support of the public unions. 

What we currently have is a system that is unsustainable.  All workers have the ability to make their voice heard individually and as a group.  Federations and associations have a long history in speaking for public workers.  But the right to collectively bargain is illegitimate outside the free market.  In the absence of a profit motive, that right becomes political rather than economic.  Denholm again, 

In the private sector the strike is an economic weapon. The employer faces economic losses through a lack of business, and the employee faces economic losses through a loss of wages. If there is a strike at one provider of a good or service, consumers – the public – can shift to another provider or not purchase at all.

In the public sector the strike is a political weapon. The employer does not suffer an economic loss, and in many cases (e.g., particularly in education where most public sector strikes occur) neither does the employee.

Because of its political impact, the public sector strike is disruptive of the normal political process. Under normal circumstances, various interest groups within society, all of whom have a legitimate interest in public policy questions, exert pressure from various directions on elected representatives. Of these groups, a union of public workers is the only one that has the power, if not the legal right, to unilaterally deprive the rest of society of an essential service. Once this occurs, divergent political forces show a strong tendency to coalesce into a unified voice demanding a restoration of service.

The only way to restore the service, in most instances, is to give in to the union's demands. Thus, by using a strike or the threat of a strike, the union can dominate the decision-making process and control the size, cost, and quality of government service.

If my employer negotiates a poor contract with us, the company may lose market share, may lose money, which may cause me to lose my job.  There is a moral hazard inherent to our negotiations.  But when the government negotiates a poor contract with their workers, the state's spending increases can cause deficits which can lead to tax increases hampering job growth affecting private businesses leaving me with either higher taxes or no job.  Without a moral hazard, it's heads you win, tails I lose.

When we gave government workers the right to collectively bargain, we breathed life into the monster that we sought to kill when we gave private workers the same right.  The private-sector employees were given a tool to bring balance between workers and owners.  The public employees have been given an axe and a mask with which to run roughshod over the taxpayers.  Even when the taxpayers revolt, the past pension & other benefits rise again, bringing the unstoppable monster back from the dead.  It's clear we’re not all going to make it out of this alive.  

In a Trilogy, the sins of the past will come back to destroy us.  But now, the taxpayers have returned and this time it's personal.  They seek to restore balance to the [work] force.  We are our only hope.

Hey Gov. Walker! This Union Man is Right Behind You.

As a Union Officer for a local in the Laborers' International Union of North America, the events in Wisconsin have me very concerned.  But contrary to what you might think, I am not on the side of the public unions.  In fact, I believe what is happening now will ultimately hurt not only the public unions, but also the private sector unions.  If my fellow brothers in the private sector wish to preserve our unions, we should support Wisconsin’s governor Scott Walker.  Unfortunately, our union leadership has lost sight of the issues and is instead focused on the money.  It’s not hard to see why.  While union membership has been on a steady decline in the private sector, the public unions and their membership will continue to rise without end until our governments are bankrupt and the voters take their revenge on the unions.  The union coffers will overflow and empower new drives to organize the private sector.  But in their search for relevancy, the unions have pushed themselves to the brink of extinction.

Labor unions have existed primarily to balance the rights of the business owner with the rights of the individual workers.  Apart, each individual worker holds very little leverage in dealing with ownership.  But collectively, a group of workers possess a great deal more.  Just as the business owner’s first duty is to achieve profit, the workers seek to be compensated properly and treated well for their efforts.  This creates a synergetic relationship between employer/employee.  When the workers are productive, the business will prosper.  As the business prospers, the workers will be rewarded for their productivity.  If the workers’ productivity declines, the business will falter and this will lead to a loss of pay and jobs for the workers.  Production=Profit=Compensation=Jobs

There are three elements that are fundamental for a healthy union-management relationship:

1. Power Balance
2. Profit Motive
3. Moral Hazards

But what happens if workers are allowed to collectively bargain in the absence of these necessary elements?