Thread: Public employee unions can only revolt against the Public!

February 25, 2011

Krugman's Third World Fantasy

By David Harsanyi

According to Nobel laureate and raconteur Paul Krugman, Gov. Scott Walker and "his backers" are attempting to "make Wisconsin -- and eventually, America -- less of a functioning democracy and more of a Third World-style oligarchy."

Now, it's common knowledge that throwing around loaded words, such as "socialism," is both uncivil and obtuse, so it's comforting to know we can still refer to people as "Third World-style oligarchs." And boy, that kind of banana republic doesn't seem very appealing.

Democracy, naturally, can only be saved by public-sector unions, which attain their political power and taxpayer-funded benefits by "negotiating" with politicians elected with the help of unions who use, well, taxpayer dollars. And you know, that doesn't sound like an oligarchy at all.

Though Walker -- who won office using obnoxious Third World oligarchic tactics, e.g., getting more votes than the other candidate -- is a cancer in the heart of democracy, union-funded Democrats evading their constitutional obligation to cast votes are only protecting the integrity of representative government by completely avoiding democracy.

You're getting it now, right?

In this world, when you tax a citizen a bit less to try to generate economic growth, you are not taking less from the taxpayer, but "stealing" from a third party who, at some point in his life, was told he had an indelible right to your wallet, no matter the cost. And if you don't hand it over?

Well, even though Wisconsin is home to some of the nation's highest taxes and even though the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that tax cuts are "not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem," you can't stop unionists from blaming "giveaways" to the rich.

And isn't it always the rich?

Surely, by now you've heard of the Koch brothers (pronounced "Eichmanns"), billionaire businessmen who spend their own money championing free market ideals and capitalism. Plutocrats!

The libertarian Kochs are super-rich and gave less than $2 million to Republicans in the most recent election cycle, which mathematically speaking amounts to nothing. In fact, Timothy Carney of The Washington Examiner dispatched Krugman's claim that unions are a "counterweight to the political power of big money" by pointing out that every one of the top 10 "industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats."

If some public union rollbacks are a harbinger of the rebirth of the robber barons, why is it that the Service Employees International Union's boss -- who represents a sliver of the American work force -- has been the most frequent guest at the White House after he handed Barack Obama $28 million and used tens of millions more to campaign for him and his policies?
Is it a sign of pending Third World oligarchy that the president, in turn, uses that money to fund Organizing for America and deploys its activists to agitate for unions in Wisconsin?

Is it impending oligarchy when the president employs the coercive power of government to stick taxpayers (and GM stakeholders) with the bill for a Detroit union bailout or appoints a rigid union booster to the National Labor Relations Board without so much as a Senate hearing to allow "democracy" to have its say in the matter?

It should not surprise you that in Wisconsin, as is the case elsewhere, it is the oligarchs who support policies that offer parents and children more educational choices, while democracy lovers call in sick and shut down the entire government-run monopoly that offers them none.

Because, despite the chilling fairy tales of Krugman and others, public employee unions aren't revolting against corporations, power brokers, Kochs or any other villains. Right or wrong, public employee unions can only revolt against the public.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.

The whole arguement seems to be between socialism(communism) and fascism. Where are the Republican ideals?

We seriously need a law stating that Union dues cannot at all go to any political contribution, political campaign, and so forth. Unions can try and spread the message for a candidate between their specific members only.

Or at least for every possible contribution require a full union vote requiring 90% of member's in that local union to have voted with at least 75% supporting one candidate.

Somehow when we gain control again from the Union extremists needa cut off the political ties from big Union money. Members have no rights to vote and deside where the money goes or deside what they principes they stand for. That right there is anti democratic.

ReformUSA2012 wrote,

We seriously need a law stating that Union dues cannot at all go to any political contribution, political campaign, and so forth.

I agree, yet stick to my belief that there should be no public employee's unions.

Why should tax payers pay taxes for their servants, (yes, they are public service servants as we the public tax payers pay their salaries, and they serve the public, quite well at times, at others not so well.) and have our taxes used against our form of government?

The public servant should be one of us and leave their job, come home in the evening and sit down at the table and write a check for whatever party, or whoever the canadate just like the rest of us. Period. Then they are counted as individuals free to participate with their monies for politicians, or NOT.

Forming a union or block, with full intentions of voting themselves more monies from the public trough is insidious at best. Should one segment of society be able to lobby our government for more monies then the rest of society should have an equal shake at the sugar tree. Not a very bright looking future then, heh?

Market forces are held hostage when unions form. When this is done in the private sector the private business can decide to fold or move, or pay up. How do you move or outsource your public servants? Then when the business sector and union sector jump in bed together in an unholy alliance and collude to milk the public, what will the offspring look like? Hideous creature indeed! Will the union public servants then turn their collective heads knowing full well where their bread is buttered, ignoring their offspring? JMO

This is from the Cato Institute this was published in 2009


Vallejo Con Dios: Why Public Sector Unionism Is a Bad Deal for Taxpayers and Representative Government

by Don Bellante, David Denholm and Ivan G. Osorio

Don Bellante is professor of economics at the University of South Florida. David Denholm is the president of the Public Service Research Foundation, a nonprofit organization that studies unions and union influence on public policy. Ivan Osorio is editorial director and a labor policy researcher at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Published on September 28, 2009
PRINT PAGE
CITE THIS
Sans Serif
Serif

Share with your friends:
ShareThis

Rates of unionization in the United States today are at historic lows and are unlikely to rebound. However, there is one sector in which organized labor is growing in strength: government. This has severe implications for the future of public finances for state and local governments across the nation, and for the nature of organized labor itself.

High rates of unionization in the public sector have led to very high labor costs in the form of generous collective bargaining contracts. Now state and local governments are under increasing financial pressure, as a worsening national economy has led to decreased revenues for states and municipalities—many of which remain locked into the generous contracts negotiated in more flush times. Thus, as businesses retrench, governments find themselves in a financial straitjacket. In addition, as government unions grow stronger relative to private-sector unions, their prevalence erodes the moderating influence of the market on the demands that unions make of employers.

Now, as an economic downturn threatens state and local government revenues, officials who want to keep their fiscal situations under control would do well to look skeptically at public-sector bargaining—especially since the existing political checks on it have proven ineffective. Public officials should eschew public-sector bargaining when possible, or at the very least, seek to limit its scope.

Don Bellante is professor of economics at the University of South Florida. David Denholm is the president of the Public Service Research Foundation, a nonprofit organization that studies unions and union influence on public policy. Ivan Osorio is editorial director and a labor policy researcher at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

As keepers of the public purse, legislators and local council members have an obligation to protect taxpayers' interests. By granting monopoly power to labor unions over the supply of government labor, elected officials undermine their duty to taxpayers, because this puts unions in a privileged position to extract political goods in the form of high pay and benefits that are much higher than anything comparable in the private sector.

This paper shows how the unionization of government employees creates a powerful, permanent constituency for bigger government— one that is motivated, well-funded, and organized. It also makes some recommendations as to how to check this constituency's growing power—an effort that promises to be an uphill struggle.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10569

and this is a pdf file from March 2010 that I linked to but can't bring it over in its entity because I can't bring over PDF files:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_61.pdf

Kathyet