Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Unions and the federal government

So, 7.6% of the US population are members of a union. If this is the case, why do unions have so much power? Why do politicians focus so much energy on courting the unions favor for their campaigns?

The government has recently gone to California and told them they would receive no stimulus money unless they rescind the wage cuts imposed on (and agreed upon by) the health care workers in that state. A wage cut that was able to free up $74 million in cash for the state. The government says this violates a clause in the stimulus which means they will not receive the money. So less than 10% of the population is so powerful that it is preventing all the economy "saving" money from being distributed. These wage cuts, combined with the stimulus, take a large step in righting a very large budgeting problem. Now, I understand the idea that these states have to qualify for the money. But why are we so set on saving the wages of this one group? The union has stood up and voiced their concern - "If they're getting money then we should too." For a set of people, the socialist Democrats, that are so concerned about the welfare of the group, they really don't seem to see the fact that the smaller, well-paid group is receiving a benefit that could be used to help others. And all of this is over $2 an hour.

So surely this is the only example of kowtowing to the unions. There couldn't be other obvious case, right? Well, unfortunately, there is another example right there in the Presidents back yard. The President and his administration have stopped the D.C. voucher system that allowed children to choose their school. The NEA has stated that their are flaws in system. The system promotes public schools over private; the private schools do not have higher math and reading scores after two years; some of these facilities have teachers that don't even have bachelor degrees. Well, I see a few flaws in this reasoning. If it promotes the private schools, why are their more public schools than private? Why are their more four more schools with greater than 500 enrolled students? And if the curriculum is no better, why wouldn't they use their superiority (or average-ness, as it apparently is) as a recruiting tool? And if again, if the facility is using inferior teachers - as they believe the bachelor's degree conveys superiority - why wouldn't they use that as recruiting tools? The problem lies in the union. The teachers union doesn't want competition. Competition would mean that teachers are judged on what they produce, not on the amount of time they have been there. No other job receives raises that have nothing to do with performance. The bigger question is why are we reducing the opportunities for these students to attend the school they believe could help them. And why are we reducing the chances for students to attend schools that have higher than 70% graduation rates?

These things are examples of the a minority (the union), which number less than 10% of our population, have such control over the lives of so many. Unions, at one point, were an amazing thing that helped many people in this country. But, at this point, they are self-serving organizations that do little to benefit their patronage. The only group that benefits from the unions are politicians. I bet any black union member would have a hard time listing the views that the union has supported to help them.

I believe this is the perfect example of our large government. We have added the unions as a militant arm of the Democrat party. We are now supporting them as though they are government employees. And we do so much to ensure that they are allowed to prosper that they should over-run our country. An employer can do nothing to prevent the unionization of his employees - short of closing their business. But they still make up only 7.6% of Americans. So, why aren't they more numerous? Because most Americans realize the horrible down side to their infestation - they control everything. They even do you the honor of turning down jobs for you. And we want to pass card-check? The unions are upset with their lack of saturation of the American work place. This would make it easier for the unions to force unionization.

And we are sure they won't strong arm people? Everything they do will be honorable and above-board?


Saturday, May 9, 2009

On viewing the correspondents' dinner

I am watching the correspondents' dinner and one thing is painfully evident.: this is a very arrogant man who knows only how to campaign. His speech is a series of jokes made at the expense of the people who may run against him in 3 years. Hillary Clinton, Micheal Bloomberg, Sarah Palin, and several others are the focus of his "jokes." They will say these are all jokes but I don't think the man does anything that isn't planned to benefit his popularity.

As I listen to his accomplishments, I still believe we are going in the wrong direction with the GOP. We need to reduce government. All his accomplishments are ideas that require enormous amounts of oversight and lots of government jobs. We need to eliminate these ideas. I really think the party has done a poor job of this since Reagan. But it's hard to blame a system for not pushing for it's own demise. The advancement of the Republican Party, in it's true form, means a severe reduction in the government, period. It would be hard for politicians to advocate their own firing. This is the direction we need to go.

We are creating a group of people that truly believe they are entitled to a life provided by the government. Education, income, healthcare, housing, travel, child-care and food are all provided if you cannot provide for yourself. And does this come as a loan on future wages or through working for these items? No, they are a hand out paid for by those who make more money and are told "they can afford it." And it is distributed by the same people that tell you these things. This creates a need for bigger government. And it continues to create a group of people that know not how to advance themselves. They look at the government as an entity that should be there for them. It's as if the Constitution says "We the group" instead of "We the People." And the instead of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it's entitlement, victim-hood, and equality of all.

I really wish we could go back to the time when everyone wanted to accomplish things for themselves instead of believing they'd already done enough.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

New Aim...

I hoping to change the focus of this blog. I know that I'm the only one reading it so I figure I won't alienate anyone. If I do, I should probably talk to someone about that...

This blog is now a platform for my beliefs on the direction of the conservative party. I am sure that the number of followers will double or triple overnight. (Wait, 0 multiplied by 2 or 3 is what - algebra was a long time ago). But, even if it doesn't, I will write my views as often as possible.

I, like many others - including the tea party attendees, believe that the conservative party needs an overhaul. Maybe we need a new party. Maybe we need a realignment of the existing party. Either way, I want to start a discussion of how we can do this -- how can we return to where we started. An America that believes that American power is a good thing. An America that believes in the individual's right to be an individual. An America that believes in a right to advance yourself through hard work and perseverance. An America that believes in success and rising above the crowd - not just being average - the same as all those around you.

America is a good country. There are times in the past when we've been a great country and someday we could be great again. We have lost sight of our greatness and now believe we should reduce ourselves to the level of every other country that hates us simply because we have succeeded. Why do they hate us? Why do we care? Why are we trying to make them like us? I believe that everyone that succeeds will have enemies.

Let's liken this to a business. The manager that is everyone's friend is usually respected by no one and will not succeed. He does not make the hard decisions because they would alienate some people. His team has no leadership; he will have a team of smiling idiots that just can't understand why they have nothing - no wins, no championships. But they like him. The team eventually looks at the manager and asks why he couldn't make them succeed. Now look at the manager that doesn't want to be friends with his team. He wants others to respect him because of his hard work and leadership. The manager that leads by example and shows others how he became so successful. His team will win. They will know how to advance and win in life. His team will be able to succeed even beyond what he has shown them.

Some people will say it's not the US's place to lead - to manage. But those same countries put us in that place. They ask us to step in when they are failing. They ask for help when their country is in jeopardy. The seek asylum when their ideas fail and they are persecuted. They ask us to share our medical advances. And if they want don't need our military support, they want our money because our economy - as bad as things are - is still better than theirs. (look at our funding of the UN or the carbon tax idea- we provide the majority of their funding and we are expected to pass on our money because we produce so much). The trend is that if you hate us, you probably want something from us or were denied something by the US government. Those countries that want nothing from us are usually friendly with us and respect the US for its accomplishments.

So when we fail, when we are not the leader on this team of fools, we will be just like all the other countries - striving to be a country like what America was once. We will wonder then how we let this slip. We will be just another country looking to get by.

I hope we are able to see where we are headed before we get there.

One other subject -

We talk of socialism. Many people say the president is not a socialist. He is trying to help people. But we have already done things to move toward socialism - the government running our education system, welfare and social security, the subsidization of the banks and auto industry and many other government run items. And the idea that the rich can afford to support the poor is socialist at the heart - the needs of the many supersede the needs of the few.

Just remember folks, if we all must live at the same level, we cannot live at the highest level. The average is never a high level. The average household income is around $43,000 per year. That is not a small amount, but if we were to make everyone live at that level, how would new businesses, hospitals, and other services be started. Would it only be if the government needed it? I came out of school with a $500 a month loan payment. Then I bought a house - $170000- and pay $1500 a month. Now, I also have a car and pay $400 each month. So, I now have a degree, an average home and a decent car and pay $2400 in loans. So, $28,800 a year in loans - just to be a veterinarian with average stuff. Now at $43000 a year that leaves about $35000 after taxes - I now have $8000 to live on. Why did I work so hard to become a doctor for that amount. All the stress, all the headaches and liability, just to make that amount. Well, I would rather be a tech that does the nursing side with out the headaches. Why would anyone do more than an easy job if there is no reward. And if we say that we will pay those jobs more we are back to capitalism. The fairest way is the way that exists. What is wrong with working hard and getting ahead?

Well, if we don't stop the socialism, you will find me where I truly belong: at home with my son collecting my welfare checks. Someone has to stay home.