As a reformed former president of what used to be one of Southern California’s major labor unions representing the employees of a regulated electrical utility I have been watching with great interest the unfolding events affecting the union represented government employees in the state of Wisconsin and that state’s legislative effort to deal with what the news media portrays as Governor Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill. That bit of legislation has now passed, and like it or not all that the Democrats can do about it is bitch, moan and point fingers, to make matters even worse for them and the labor movement, a similar bill was passed by the Ohio state senate.
The provisions of the new Wisconsin law affect all general employees of the state with the exclusion of public safety employees. The areas covered in all future contractual negotiations with the state will be limited to specific topics for the affected bargaining units. Health care and pension benefits will no longer be considered as topics for labor negotiations. Wage discussions will be limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index. Any discussion of hours will be restricted according to the needs of the state, and the catch-all phrase, “and all other conditions of employment,” that has historically been used by union negotiators to cover everything under the sun, has been deleted. The automatic withholding of union dues from an employee’s paycheck has been prohibited and any general employee who chooses not to pay union dues can remain a member of a collective bargaining unit. Labor organizations representing collective bargaining units containing general employees of the state will be required to recertify annually. Failure to acquire 51% of the vote in an annual recertification election will result in the decertification of the representative at the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement. The employees formerly represented by that collective bargaining unit will then be unrepresented and will not be represented for one year. No collective bargaining agreement covering general employees of the state will be extended beyond its one year term. Failing to report to work as scheduled for any three unexcused working days during a state of emergency, or participating in a strike, work stoppage, sit-down, stay-in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the of operations or services of state government, including specifically purported mass resignations or sick calls now constitutes just cause for discharge.
From my experience in organized labor I can attest to the fact that the leaders of local unions in the private sector are a canny and normally intelligent bunch. They are very aware of their limitations, and the usually, but not always, exercise a measure of restraint least they “kill the goose that laid the golden egg.” In other words the local unions seek to improve their lot in life, but not to the point where the company their members work for is overly burdened and forced to close down or figure out some way to eliminate its represented employees. Workers without jobs can’t pay union dues, and without a steady stream of union dues to pay the over-inflated salaries of the union officers the whole thing falls apart. Public sector union leaders have never had to consider the well-being of the “goose that laid the golden egg.” For the public sector unions that “goose” is the tax payer who shoulders the burden of their higher wages, great benefit plans and lucrative pension benefits. The private sector service and repair electrician working in Long Beach for $18 per hour and the Certified Electrician working in Van Nuys for $15 per hour and paying the wages, the health care benefits stuffing the pension fund for the generic electrician working for California’s Department of Transportation and pulling in nearly $5000 per month, and the “goose” can scream his head off without anybody paying the least bit of attention. In fact the vast majority of the geese all across this country don’t even think about what all of the tax money that is snatched out of the paycheck is used for and no government body is about to send them an annual audit explaining where their money is being used.
Public sector unions were illegal throughout most of the U.S. until the around 1959 when, ironically enough, the state of Wisconsin became the first in the nation to allow collective bargaining by public employees. Prior to this, public-sector employees commonly earned a bit less than their private-sector equivalents and this was considered acceptable by the public as well as the government workers who, for the most part considered themselves as servants of the public interest. The negative aspect of working for slightly less compensation than their private sector equivalents was marginally offset by the fact that the government employees had reasonable benefit plans at a time when many private sector companies offered few benefits, and employment with the government was always more stable than most of the private sector jobs where companies came and went and everything was in a constant state of change.
Without getting into a lengthy discussion on the history of labor movements in the United States it is still possible to explain the major differences and the inconsistencies of private versus public sector unions. To begin with, the historical basis of collective bargaining revolves around the idea that workers deserve a fair share of the company’s profits. I won’t try to justify that idea in any way because it is pretty impossible to do so depending which side of the fence you are standing on. I will point out that the concept is entirely ludicrous when applied to public service because governments do not generate profits; the revenue of government is derived from the assessment of taxes.
Private sector union members might also be shareholders in the company they work for but their ability to affect the determinations made by the board of directors is pretty limited in most cases and they do not have to power to eliminate their supervisors or other management personnel, however the members of public sector unions are employed to work under the direction of political office holders and their appointees, and as voters they can vote to replace the political leaders that oversee their positions and appoint the supervisors they report to. Furthermore, a large portion of the dues money that is withheld from their paychecks for the union is contributed to the Democratic Party which their labor union supports, for the continuing support of the Democratic Party’s elected representatives. This could be considered acceptable by union members that are also registered Democrats, however for members who are registered with other political parties, this might be considered completely unacceptable. Regardless of what the individual member thinks of the Democratic elected officials they work for, or the Democratic candidates they may work for if elected, the individual union members have little or no voice with respect to their local’s political contributions, and even if they are capable of dropping out of the union and remaining employed, they are still required to pay the union dues, and the process for stopping that money from being used for political parties they do not support is purposely made as difficult as the law will allow.
Private sector unions can leverage companies during labor negotiations with strikes, slowdowns and work stoppages, but the public sector union is limited in their leverage to negotiating within the limited allotment of profit or company revenue budgeted on an annual basis for labor expenses. While it is possible for a local union to demand a larger share of the company’s revenue during negotiations, the union that does this risks the chance of cutting too far into the operating expenses of the company and forcing them into bankruptcy and inevitable layoffs. Classical economic theory holds that wage growth without capital investment is virtually impossible. A machine shop can make a large investment in upgrading and modernizing their machine tools and thereby increase the company’s overall productivity. As a consequence of this increased productivity, the value of each labor hour rises and the company can then increase the wages to attract the workers they need to fully staff the facility without cutting into their operational budget. There is no capital investment in government, and every dollar they take in comes out of the pockets of the tax payers. With public sector unions, the revenue of the “company” is derived from taxes, and the line created by budgetary allotments for labor expenses seems very hazy if not completely arbitrary. The government can, and does, raise taxes on a regular basis to meet the rising costs of operation, therefore, public sector unions are far less shy about demanding significant increases in pay and benefits than their private counterparts. Furthermore, as the number of government employees increases the power of their collective bargaining group becomes greater and greater while the limits to the financial obligations their labor representatives can demand of the government becomes significantly reduced. Given a sufficiently high percentage of voters working in union represented government positions, there is essentially no limit to the demands they can make on their employer, or the financial obligations they can impose on the tax payers as a direct result of those demands. The bottom line, as union negotiators are fond of saying, is that as long as there is no restriction on the size of government and the number of new government positions the politicians create, and that a majority of all government employees are union represented jobs, the power and control that the public sector unions wield over the decisions that government makes is unlimited, and that extends far beyond wages, benefits, pensions and working conditions. That power to control government includes the ability to initiate and pass legislative acts and constitutional amendments as the leaders of those labor organizations see fit without regard for what is best for the American people or what the voters want.
The final difference that I will point out between public and private sector unions is the fact that privately owned companies stretched to the snapping point by their union negotiated obligations can get out from underneath their heavy burden by shedding their obligations in bankruptcy court, however, for a government there are few ways to solve the problems associated with becoming over-burdened by union negotiated obligations, one of those solutions is to dramatically increase the tax base by increasing the population either by encouraging natural population growth through tax cuts extended on the basis of the number of children in a tax payer’s family, or by encouraging huge waves of immigration. In the minds of politicians tax cuts to encourage the growth of American families are viewed as being every bit a noxious as any other tax cut, and their reluctance to give back to the tax payers the money that they feel is justifiably withheld in taxes is made obvious by the fact that every tax cut given to individual tax payers in the last half-century has been so miserly as to be entirely pointless, therefore, the idea of tax cuts to incentivize an increase in population is a non-starter because our elected representatives simply can’t fathom and compelling reason to give back even the smallest portion of what they have already taken. As we have seen in the United States over the course of the last fifty years, the elected representatives of the American voters have chosen the immigration route to solving their problem, unfortunately, this solution is not working because the cost of the public union’s negotiated financial burden on the American taxpayers is growing so fast that no amount of immigration to increase the tax base would ever alleviate it. Secondly, the immigrants that are coming into the U.S. today do not represent a positive growth in the tax base. The majority of the immigrants, and most especially the illegal aliens, that are entering the country today have few, if any marketable job skills, many of them do not speak English, they have no savings to act as a buffer for them and their families while they get training and find employment, the vast majority are functionally illiterate and can’t be trained cost effectively, and more than a few of them have no desire to better their lot in life, acclimate to life in the U.S., or to lead honest and productive lives once they get here. The majority of all legal and illegal immigrants represent a net drain on the American economy for the first ten years they are in this country, and in most cases it is not until the third generation that these immigrants become productive tax-paying members of society. Even if the immigrants coming into the U.S. had the job and language skills, education, and qualifications to immediately secure employment, they can only help solve the problem if there are a sufficient number of vacant jobs in the country to allow each new immigrant a position of employment. Not only are there not enough jobs for the immigrants coming in, but the working American citizens, who now form the tax base that the government depends on to pay these union imposed debts, are being displaced from their jobs by immigrants who are willing to work for far less than American citizens. By working for lower wages, the immigrants pay less in income taxes and the government’s tax revenue is reduced farther and farther with each newly employed immigrant. On top of that, the displaced American tax payer is now dependent on government subsidized unemployment insurance, welfare and/or social security which can only exacerbate the overall problem. In the meantime, the financial burden imposed on the government and the American tax payers by public sector unions continues to grow without restriction. Using immigration in the attempt to solve this problem is illogical, and after many years of attempting to do just that it has become blatantly obvious to everyone, except the labor unions and the politicians, that we could increase immigration to the point that the U.S. was as densely populated as mainland China and it would not begin to dent the constantly growing financial obligation imposed by public sector unions that is currently driving the U.S. economy headlong into ruin.
There isn’t one elected official in the United States that isn’t already aware of the fact that the financial burden imposed on government by the public sector unions is unsustainable. No employer, regardless of the company’s profit or accumulated wealth, could ever hope to survive if they routinely allowed their employees to retire at the age of 55 with anywhere from 70% to 100% of the full salary they were making in their final years of employment. There isn’t one private company anywhere on the planet that could afford to operate under a burden such as this, however, thanks to the power of the public sector unions, the majority of government workers enjoy benefit plans that no private sector worker will ever see. Furthermore, in most cases the incredibly lucrative pension plans for represented government employees often include annual inflation adjustments along with 100% government subsidized health care for life. Additionally, while 55 is the average age at which most government employees may retire, there are numerous government jobs that allow the workers to retire with full benefits, at or near their final wage while far younger. The best example of this is the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Boston which allows their bus drivers to retire at the age of 41 with full medical benefits and more than 75% of their annual $70,000 salary. How could an elected representative of the American people, an individual sworn to the service of this nation’s citizens and dedicated to increasing the benefits and prosperity of our society, condone entering into such an unsustainable agreement?
In paragraph seven I made a statement that I will now repeat. Given a sufficiently high percentage of voters working in union represented government positions, there is essentially no limit to the demands they can make on their employer, or the financial obligations they can impose on the tax payers as a direct result of those demands. It is an irrefutable fact that American labor unions pour millions of dollars every year into American politics, and 99.9% of that money goes to the Democratic Party. The majority of the known union money going to the Democrats is given through political action committees (PACs), however, labor unions also donate large sums of money to the Democratic Party by breaking their contributions into smaller amounts and listing them as individual contributions made under the names of the union’s individual members. In many cases, these individual members do not have any idea that they have contributed. This is how Barack Obama got away with saying that all of the money contributed to his 2008 presidential campaign came from individual donors. It would be interesting to check the list of Obama’s campaign donors against the voter registration list to see how many of the contributions came from registered Republicans who didn’t support him, and most likely voted for someone else. In 2008 the labor union PACs contributed $73.1 million to political campaigns with $68.3 million going directly to the Democratic Party. The remaining $3.7 million was split between candidates running independently or in one of the other minor parties and a microscopic portion may have found its way to one or more Republican candidates but I can’t find any record to substantiate this claim. Additionally, in 2008 the labor unions invested $40.7 million in their lobbying efforts for primarily Democratic agenda items. During the 2010 mid-term election cycle the labor unions contributed $67.5 million through their political action committees and another $24.8 million through individual donations. The unions also poured some $46.7 million into lobbying efforts in 2010, and once again, that money was used to further items on the Democratic Party’s political agenda. In 2008 and 2010, the single largest contributor to the total contributions made by labor unions came from the public sector unions representing government employees. Of the top ten contributors to American politics and politicians, five are labor unions representing members working in public sector government positions. There is no possible way to deny the obvious fact that this sort of money buys an incredible amount of influence at every level of American politics and government, however, money is one thing and votes are another. The key to winning elections is to win over or buy the support of large voting blocs within the population.
A voting bloc is a group of voters that are motivated by a specific concern or group of concerns to the point that it determines how each individual in the bloc will vote in an election. The Democratic Party has normally been more concerned with attracting the different voting blocs than they are with the development or integrity of a solid issue platform. When it comes to special interest groups, the Democratic Party is particularly well attuned, and while they may not be even remotely considered the friend of the working man, they are willing to exchange political favors for the support of a fairly cohesive bloc representing more than 14 million voters affiliated with labor unions. Since neither group has acquired the reputation for putting the welfare of the nation before all else, the mutual back slapping agreement between the labor unions and the Democratic Party is a marriage made in Hell.
In 2010 there were 7.6 million public sector union employees and 7.1 million union workers in the private sector for a total of 14.7 million union represented workers in the United States. The combined strength of the union vote in the U.S. is greater than the voting strength of some ethnic groups, it is equal to approximately two-thirds the voting strength of the U.S. population of Hispanics, it represents half the voting strength of all African-Americans and it is greater than the combined voting power of the total populations of Asian, American Indian and Pacific Islanders in the United States. There is little doubt that 14.7 million votes can make or break a political campaign, and any political party that enters the election season with the assurance that most of those 14.7 million votes will be cast in their favor has a distinct advantage over their opposition. Admittedly, voting blocs have been around since the founding of the Republic, and they will still be here long after I and everyone reading this is long dead and buried, but the fact of the matter is that voting blocs are completely contrary to intended purpose of voting in America, and no political party that was honestly dedicated to the preservation of this nation’s constitution, or the freedom and liberty of its citizens, would encourage, support or condone voting blocs let alone foster their growth and multiplicity, or worst of all, intentionally pander to them with promises and unpublished agreements.
In the United States, elections are more than simply showing up at the local voting place on the first Tuesday in November and casting ballots to determine in which of the candidates the majority of citizens will place their trust. Voting is both a right and an obligation. It is the right to participate in the republic, and it is the obligation to be an informed citizen who will take the time to actually vote. The obligation to be informed is founded on the idea that a republic requires well-educated citizens to safeguard liberty, a notion that was expressed repeatedly by the founders of this nation when the expressed the belief that the sole purpose of education in this country was to enable the citizenry with the skills of critical thinking and logic thereby giving to each of them the full potential requisite of an active participant. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (Ford, “Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” 10:4)
Constitutionally, the major objective of voting is to control the government and its ability to infringe upon the liberty and rights of the people. In this respect, voting is the ultimate check and balance system in the process of government, and it serves “We the People” as the last line of defense to preserve our freedom and liberty. This is why the founders of this nation saw the act of voting as being both a sacred right and a very serious personal obligation, and this is expressly why those same founders viewed the failure to protect and defend the Constitution and the republic by voting for representatives who would not hold the public trust sacred and were not dedicated to the preservation of the Constitution as a despicably treasonous act.
An informed voter assesses the political candidates on the basis of the positions they take on important current issues, leadership qualities, the experience they would bring to office, their past record of service, the candidate’s personal characteristics such as, intelligence, honesty, ability to communicate, common sense, fairness and a host of other factors too numerous to mention. The end result of this process is to determine which of the candidates before us is best suited to safeguard the trust of the voters by fulfilling the obligations of the office that candidate is elected to. Which candidate will to the best of his or her ability, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?” And finally, which of the candidates has the capacity to effective lead the nation, serve the best interests of the people equally and fairly, promote the prosperity of all, protect the American citizens, overcome all adversity, and ensure the security of the nation? Clearly, the responsibility of being an informed participant in the republic is serious business and it takes a certain measure of self-discipline and determination which, unfortunately, many who today call themselves “Americans” are unwilling to give. For the members of a voting bloc, however, the process of voting is far less onerous, time consuming and mentally challenging. As a loyal member of a voting bloc the act of voting is reduced to transferring the names of the preferred candidates indicated on the paper handed to you by your union leadership or sent to you by the pro-illegal alien advocacy group, straight onto the ballot card. You don’t need to give it any thought at all; in fact you don’t even really need to know how to read. Knowing whether or not the candidates you are voting for are honest, truthful or even qualified is not necessary, and all things considered, when you are voting as a member of a bloc, the less you know about the candidates, the issues, the government, American history or the U.S. Constitution, the easier the whole thing will settle in whatever you have that passes for a conscience. Thinking for your self can be so over-rated.
Simple greed, jealously, stupidity and laziness are the essential components from which voting blocs are created. The candidates selected by them are not judged by their ability to lead the nation, serve the best interests of the people equally and fairly, promote the prosperity of all, protect the American citizens, overcome all adversity, and ensure the security of the nation, they are judged by their ability to make and fulfill promises, their willingness to look the other way when laws are violated, and their ability to stifle the outrage of their own conscience when they become an active participant in some unwritten agreement that will benefit the undeserving at the expense of all. Simply put, the recipients of the voting bloc’s support and money are the candidates that have made the biggest promises. Qualifications and good character do not enter into the equation. In many respects it is more like buying a used car than casting an informed vote, because it is a situation that encourages corruption.
The public and private sector unions gave their full support to the Democrat’s health care bill not because it was good for the people of the United States, and certainly not because it was fair for everyone, but because it contained massive payoffs to the public sector unions, payoffs that will come at the expense of the American tax payers who will be forced to suffer the consequence with no reasonable benefit. The labor unions threw their unwavering support behind the passage of the $800+ billion stimulus bill, not because it was viewed as a solution to this nation’s economic problem, and not because anyone could ever hope to prove that it was the wise or the fair thing to do, but because of the numerous provisions in that stimulus bill that directly resulted in great benefits and increased political power exclusively for the leaders of organized labor, and once again, at the full expense of the American tax payer. The “Employee Free Choice Act,” a rancid piece of legislation currently being sponsored by our Democratic representatives in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives contains nothing at all that will benefit the American worker, but it will provide huge benefits and opportunities for the accumulation of massive wealth to labor unions exclusively, and everything that the labor unions gain by this bill’s passage will be at the expense of the American people. In exchange for the massive financial contributions made by labor unions to the Democratic Party, and the support of the pro-labor voting bloc during upcoming elections the Democratic Party agreed to introduce legislation that contained proposals to eliminate an employee’s right to accept or reject union representation by means of a secret ballot election as it has been done so effectively for more than fifty years, it contains provisions to force businesses into binding arbitration if they fail to quickly agree to the contractual demands of union negotiators, and it imposes severe penalties on companies violating the provisions of the union contracts that were shoved down their throats in binding arbitrations. The Employee Free Choice Act will clear away the legal protections that American workers have against being subjected to the harassment and intimidation of union thugs, and it will eliminate any resistance to union representation by non-union companies whose employees never wanted or needed union representation in the first place. Labor unions will be free to demand unreasonable wage increases and benefits despite a company’s ability to pay, and ultimately, those demands will have to be met because the owners of those companies will have no choice in the matter. The companies that can afford it will close up shop and relocate to other countries, and those that can’t afford to relocate will simply go bankrupt. The ranks of the unemployed will grow by leaps and bounds and the only ones who stand to gain by this insanity are the leaders of the labor unions and the Democratic Party that will be the number one recipient of the huge increase in money flowing into big labor’s already overflowing treasury. The American people will not benefit, and freedom and liberty in the U.S. will be diminished, but the unions and the Democratic Party will flourish, and it will be at the expense of every person in this country.
As the former president of a major Southern California local union I have sat on the union side of the negotiating table debating wage and benefit agreements for the private sector employees of four multi-national corporations, and I can attest to the fact that in every case talking to the stone-faced corporate negotiators sitting across from me was like trying to carry on a conversation with a parrot. It seems like all really big corporations get their labor negotiators from some top-secret genetics research lab where they breed them under strictly controlled conditions devoid of humor, sympathy, compassion and other human weaknesses. Preparations for private sector union negotiations normally begin months before the first meeting with the company takes place. The union negotiating committee conducts a multitude of brain-storming sessions trying to develop the best strategy possible and to identify any potential opening that will increase their leverage at the bargaining table. From beginning to end it is a major struggle for the private sector union to simply keep what they have during contract negotiations, and any improvement they can squeeze out of the company is always viewed as a major achievement. The private sector union negotiator is not sitting across the table from a company representative that he voted into office and can as easily vote out of office. The private sector union negotiator is not sitting across from someone he has contributed thousands of dollars to during the last election, and certainly not someone that he can threaten with cutting off those contributions or giving them to someone else. The private sector union negotiator is not sitting across the table from someone who is in office because the union supplied him with free union volunteers at election time to staff his phone banks, flood the city with campaign signs and pass out glossy leaflets in from of grocery stores outlining his sterling qualities. Public sector contract negotiations are entirely different because the representatives of the public sector union are sitting on both sides of the table. On the one side there are the actual union leaders representing the government employees, and on the other side sit the political hacks that depend on the union’s campaign contributions for the money they need to run for office as well as the union endorsement that will ensure them the support of the union voters thereby guaranteeing their continued employment. For a private sector union negotiator this sort of an arrangement could only happen in a really great dream, and this is the exact reason why when the total compensation for federal and state workers is nearly 50% higher than for private sector employees the public sector unions can demand higher wages and better benefits and the union lackeys, who are supposed to be representing the interests of the people, acquiesce to anything the union asks for. Furthermore, the union lackeys who are supposed to be representing the interests of the people that elected them to office instead of the unions that are paying them are, 101 times out of a 100, Democrats. How can I be so sure that these corrupt, bought and paid for politicians are Democrats? The answer to that is as easy as following the trail of money from the worker’s pay check, to the union treasury and then out the back door and into the back pocket of the sympathetic politician. In the 2010 election cycle 99.5% of the political contributions made by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees went to the Democratic Party, 96% of the political contributions made by the National Education Association (representing public school teachers) went to the Democratic Party, and 99.7% of the political contributions made by the American Federation of Teachers (representing workers in education, health care, and public service) went to the Democratic Party. These contributions were not made by the labor leaders of AFSCME, NEA, and the AFT on the basis of who had the best qualifications to do the job, who was the most honest and forthright individual running at the time, or who appeared to be the most dedicated to serving the public in a fair and balanced manner. These contributions were made to the Democratic politicians who promised to raise the wages of the public sector union members, give them greater benefits, and hire more government workers into union represented positions despite the fact that statistic show that public sector workers are already making 50% more than their private sector counterparts, that the overly generous pension plans of these public sector workers is underfunded by more than $1 trillion across the entire county, or that private sector employment is skyrocketing at an unprecedented rate while the private sector companies have shed more than 7,000,000 jobs since the recession began.
The massive power of public sector unions has enabled them with the ability to dictate increases in taxes regardless of whether or not those tax increases are supported or rejected by the American voters. Essentially the public sector unions have usurped the voters control on the rate of taxation in the political spectrum of this nation, and they have set themselves up as the primary beneficiaries of an American tax system that provides them with wage increases and outstanding benefit plans while the unrepresented American citizen receives the meager crumbs left on the table after the feast is abandoned. The Democratic politicians that first engineered this scam are long dead and the current drop can no longer keep the facts hidden from view. For years they have tried to keep it under wraps by offering the public sector parasites moderate wage increases and outstanding pension promises in the hope that by deferring the costs to some future date, they would be long gone to some other political position before the bill came due. The future has finally arrived and all across the nation the states are standing on the edge of insolvency, most of them so deep in debt that they will never recover, the federal government is printing money by the truckload with nothing to back it up and borrowing trillions of dollars from foreign investors to pay for the over-bloated wages and pensions of public sector union employees while cutting back on health to the elderly, closing our national parks and letting our highways fall into ruin.
Public sector unions are killing the American economy and they are intentionally distorting our system of government to their advantage and our great and lasting detriment. And yet when the governor of the state of Wisconsin sees what amounts to $10.9 billion in unfunded pension liabilities for the public sector union employees, and a projected $3.6 billion deficit for the state in the next few years, and tries to take the necessary steps to halt the hemorrhaging before the patient bleeds completely out and dies, the American news media, the self-appointed “Guardians of American Freedom” attack his efforts with headlines reading, “Wisconsin Governor Attacks Collective Bargaining Rights of Union Workers,” millions of loyal union members across America express disdain for the union busting governor and the legions of liberally inclined sheep wax sympathetically for the civil rights of the poor oppressed Wisconsin union members suffering at the hands of another evil right-wing fascist. The issue in Wisconsin is not the bargaining rights of the over-stuffed government hogs feeding mindlessly away at the tax payer’s expense, the issue in Wisconsin is survival.
I did not intend for this posting to reach such a gargantuan proportion and I will admit that when I was back at the mid-way point I edited out ten paragraphs regarding the history of the labor movement’s affiliation with the Democratic Party in the attempt to post something a bit more concise than what I ended up with. My failure is obvious. I will leave this dissertation with a few parting thoughts before I get fired up and take off on another tangent.
The freedom, liberty and prosperity we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America is the result of the hard work, dedication and sacrifices made by the millions of Americans who came before us. People who were willing to think and act for the advancement of something that was far more important and vital than their own personal needs and desires, and people who had the discipline to see beyond their own self-interest a future that was far grander than anything they could accomplish alone. The efficiency of our form of government is predicated on the ability of individuals to see beyond their own desires and to act for the betterment of all. Our assumption that all men of good character will naturally be inclined in this direction has made us the easy prey of the slick talking self-centered manipulators who would steal our power and our nation out from beneath us and hock it for whatever they could get. If we remain as complacent and self-absorbed as we have been in the recent past then we will soon find ourselves becoming subject to same foreign powers that our current elected representatives now turn to for larger and larger loans, and our freedom and liberty will be lost forever. We will be bound by the chains of slavery for debts incurred by those who thought only of themselves and what they wanted while we were left floundering out of control. Before our nation falls and our freedom becomes a historical footnote in the pages of history we, the American people, must stop the destructive distortion of our system of government by the labor union’s looters and the corrupt politicians who have conspired with them to destroy our nation, our future and the future of all who come after us.
liberty, illegal aliens, special interest, health care, unemployment, freedom, bankruptcy, stimulus bill, labor union, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Wisconsin, Scott Walker
digg this | del.icio.us