On tuesday, Ohio voters will vote on Issue 2, which is a referendum on Senate Bill 5 (SB5). Voting 'Yes' on Issue 2 is a vote to keep the SB5 legislation in place. Voting 'No' on Issue 2 is a vote to repeal SB5.

I went to the union-backed website WeAreOhio.com. The unions want to repeal SB5. The first thing I saw on the union website was this – "Senate Bill 5 does not apply to politicians. While politicians were asking hardworking Ohioans to make "shared sacrifices", they were giving out huge pay raises and bonuses to their staff members. Stop the politicians from hurting middle class families – and helping themselves". I agree that Ohio's politicians should not be giving themselves raises when the state is so deeply in debt and unemployment is high, but that's not the real issue to consider here. The real issue is, how does Ohio close it's $8 billion budget deficit ? (other sources have claimed the budget deficit is $5 billion, but either way, something must be done). It boils down to two choices – 1) Raise taxes, or 2) Cut spending, and therein lies my problem with what WeAreOhio is selling. They talk about SB5 "hurting middle class families". Well, who do they think is going to bear the burden of the tax increases that will be necessary if SB5 is negated ? It will be ALL of us – middle class families, poor families, everyone. All Ohioans pay state/local taxes of some sort. WeAreOhio is asking us to pay more, so that public sector union employees won't have to pay 15% of the costs of their own pensions and health care benefits. This leads to my second problem with what WeAreOhio is selling. PUBLIC SECTOR UNION EMPLOYEES MAKE FAR MORE IN WAGES AND BENEFITS THAN THE REST OF US. As reported by the Associated Press:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the national wage-plus-benefits averages in June were $28.13 per hour in the private sector and $40.40 per hour in the public sector.

Public sector employees have it pretty good, far better than private sector employees, and as most of you who work in the private sector know, private sector workers have been paying a large portion of their own pension and health care benefits (usually 50%) for many years now, if they are lucky enough to have those benefits at all. Now WeAreOhio is trying to say private sector workers, who pay 100% of the salaries and benefits of public workers to begin with, should pick up the tab for the wages/benefits of public sector workers who already make 43% more than they do on average. How in the world is that fair ??? Who is "hurting middle class families" now ? Where is the "shared sacrifice" in that ? What I hear WeAreOhio saying is "we are more entitled than the rest of you". With poverty on the rise in a poor economy, it is eminently reasonable to ask the best-paid workers in our state, the public sector union workers, to pay THEIR fair share. What is unreasonable is to ask the more downtrodden workers to pick up the tab. And while I'm on the subject, private sector workers don't get to retire after 25 years on the job with full pensions at age 50 either. Public sector union workers DO, and guess who picks up the tab for that ? The private sector workers, that's who. In many cases, those public sector employees will spend more years in retirement collecting their pensions than they did working…and it's somehow unreasonable for them to pay 15% of their own benefits during their working years ??? I don't think so. Why would they expect taxpayers to pay 100% of that freight when the taxpayers have to pay for THEIR OWN PENSIONS THEMSELVES ?

Because WeAreOhio can't argue the merits based on factual data, they resort to a bunch of mud-slinging and scare tactics. They say "collective bargaining rights are being destroyed", and Governor Kasich is engaging in "union busting", but those are just characterizations. SB5 states that the public sector unions can't collectively bargain on benefits. That is an effort to get the main drivers of exploding state budget costs (pensions and health care costs) under control. Labor costs are the biggest driver of local government costs (and lowering the salaries of politicians wouldn't make a dent in our budget deficit). The public sector unions can still collectively bargain on wages, terms, and conditions of their employment under SB5 (with a few wrinkles, which I'll get to in a minute). The unions will still be intact, though honestly, I don't know why we need public sector unions at all. Unions make sense in the private sector where management represents only management, but in the public sector we have elected representatives to represent ALL the people. If we don't like our representation, we can vote in new representation. It's really that simple.

Then WeAreOhio trots out this canard – "[A YES vote on] Issue 2 would make it harder for our everyday heroes to serve our communities", accompanied by a picture of a firefighter. I beg to differ. If anything would impede the ability of our heroes to serve our communities, it would be if there were LESS of them, and voting NO on Issue 2 may well result in less of them, because Ohio taxpayers are already hurting financially and probably won't agree to any tax increases to close Ohio's budget gap. That will result in layoffs of firefighters, police officers, and teachers.

Issue 2 opponents say ending binding arbitration, which SB5 does do, will result in the employers (politicians) determining the working conditions of public sector employees. WeAreOhio is running tons of radio and tv ads making this point. I'll let the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial board respond:

Imperfect though it may be, Issue 2 will give local governments and school districts more tools to control labor costs and protect taxpayers. It requires public employees to make the same kind of contributions toward their health and pension benefits that most private-sector workers do. It ends state-mandated wage step-ups, requires performance-based pay and permits layoffs based on more than seniority. Those factors are especially important to school districts such as Cleveland that need to transform themselves in the face of outmoded state rules that force them to toss aside newer — and perhaps better — teachers when money is tight.

Issue 2 also would revamp the current system of binding arbitration. Envisioned as a way to resolve deadlocks without strikes, such arbitration in practice can short-circuit bargaining because neither side has to put its real bottom line on the table and instead can roll the dice with an arbitrator who must pick between competing proposals. Mayors, including Akron's Don Plusquellic — a Democrat who opposes Issue 2 — have complained bitterly for years that arbitrators need not consider a city's finances in making their decisions. That has to change.

But Issue 2 ends binding arbitration in a way that also raises questions: It leaves the final decision on an impasse to the employer's legislative body — that is the city council or school board. Unions and their allies say that lets the employer decide. Yet even skeptical supporters of Issue 2 wonder if elected officials will really make tough decisions regarding popular — and politically active — employees such as police officers, firefighters and teachers.

Are the unions losing some of their power to dictate terms to the government and the taxpayers under SB5 ? Yes, they are, and that's why they are spending a boatload of money to fight it. However, I don't know many politicians who would want to take stands against law and order, public safety, or teachers, do you ? Have you ever heard a politician say 'If I'm elected, I promise FEWER police officers, FEWER firefighters, and FEWER teachers. I promise the streets will be less safe, and our kids won't be as well educated" ??? I haven't, and if any do, I'm fairly certain they won't be around for long. If you doubt me, just look at the firestorm SB5 has caused, and that is an effort TO KEEP ESSENTIAL PUBLIC WORKERS ON THE JOB. The bottom line here is, our government HAS to be able to control it's costs, or it's not really a government, it's subservient to special interests, in this case the unions. What we need to do is make our state's finances sustainable, and right now they are not.

We all appreciate police officers, firefighters, and teachers. I know I do. If the financial good times return to Ohio, I'm all for paying them as much as our finances allow. But times are tough out there, and this is the time to cut back, because the last thing we want are fewer police officers, firefighters, and teachers on the job. The next to last thing we want is to increase taxes on our struggling citizens.

Voting Yes on Issue 2 makes sense.

Recently, the Boeing Corporation announced plans to build a $1 billion commercial jet production plant in South Carolina.

With the national unemployment rate at 9%, and manufacturing jobs leaving America in droves, it's certainly good news that Boeing is building it's new plant right here in the good old USA, eh ?

While it may sound like good news to most of us, the Obama administration objects. Obama's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has sued Boeing to prevent the plant from being built in South Carolina. The NLRB is accusing Boeing of unfair labor practices. The NLRB is accusing Boeing of union-busting. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the NLRB, it is a branch of the federal government whose board members are all appointed by the President. Three of the four current NLRB board members are Democrats. The stated purpose of the NLRB is to protect employee rights, which includes the right of workers to collectively bargain, as outlined in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (Note to Democrats in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana – the National Labor Relations Act specifically excluded federal, state, and local government employees from collective bargaining rights. It only applies to private sector workers).

The NLRB demands that Boeing build it's new plant in Washington state instead of South Carolina. The reason is, South Carolina is one of 22 right-to-work states, while Washington is not. In right-to-work states, workers cannot be forced to join a union and pay union dues as a condition of their employment. Needless to say, forced unionism is exactly what the unions want, ergo the complaint against Boeing.

I have a few observations. First of all, aside from the union vs. right-to-work issue, I have a problem when our own government opposes an American company that wants to produce jobs and manufacture products in this country. Isn't job creation supposed to be what we are encouraging ? Second, why should the government have the potential to compel a private corporation to do business in one state over another ? I thought this was supposed to be the land of the free, the UNITED States, not the land of political friends and enemies. Third, there is no statute prohibiting collective bargaining or the creation of unions in right-to-work states. Workers are free to unionize if they wish, or not unionize. It's the worker's choice. I don't see a big problem there, but in the interest of fairness, here is the argument for and against right-to-work laws, via Wikipedia:

For Right-To-Work:

Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the Constitutional right to freedom of association, as well as the common-law principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions, and for this reason sometimes refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced unionism" states.[2] They contend that it is wrong for unions to be able to agree with employers to include clauses in their union contracts (also known as a union security agreement) which require all employees to either join the union, or pay union dues as a condition of employment.[3] Furthermore, they contend that in certain cases forced union dues are used to support political causes, causes which some union members may oppose.[4]

Against Right-To-Work:

Opponents argue right-to-work laws create a free-rider problem,[8][9] in which non-union employees (who are bound by the terms of the union contract even though they are not members of the union) benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues.[8][10]

Opponents further argue that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered[10] and worker safety and health is endangered. For these reasons, they often refer to right-to-work states as "right to work for less" states[11] or "right-to-fire" states, and "non-right-to-work" states as "free collective bargaining" states. They also cite statistics from the United States Department of Labor showing, for example, that, in 2003, states with right-to-work laws in general had a higher rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers.[12]

The Libertarian in me is persuaded by the freedom of assocation argument of the right-to-work supporters, but I also acknowledge the important role private sector unions have played in the past in securing rights and decent wages for American workers. That is no small thing, and it's also Libertarian to allow private sector workers to unionize (or not) as they see fit. In the end, it's that choice that is essential, and in the end, if workers in right-to-work states are being abused, they CAN still unionize. It's up to them. As long as that choice remains in place, I side with the right-to-work people.

Many Republicans, especially those from South Carolina, are taking issue with the NLRB's action against Boeing. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called it "nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America." South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham said, "If successful, the NLRB complaint would allow unions to hold a virtual ‘veto' over business decisions. Left to their own devices, the NLRB would routinely punish Right to Work states that value and promote their pro-business climates." South Carolina Senator Jim Demint said, "This is nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama's re-election campaign. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of hundreds of jobs in South Carolina and thousands of jobs nationwide."

The International Association of Machinists And Aerospace Workers (IAM) union claims Boeing is building it's new plant in South Carolina in retaliation for past union strikes against Boeing. The NLRB, which is supposed to be an independent agency, is clearly acting as a mouthpiece for union grievances. The NLRB's Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, said Boeing was building it's plant in South Carolina "to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity."

Boeing denies the accusation:

“We hold no animus toward union members, and we have never sought to threaten or punish them for exercising their rights, as the NLRB claims,” Boeing CEO Jim McNerney wrote. “To the contrary, union members are part of our company's fabric and key to our success. About 40% of our 155,000 U.S. employees are represented by unions — a ratio unchanged since 2003. Nor are we making a mass exodus to right-to-work states that forbid compulsory union membership. We have a sizable presence in 34 states; half are unionized and half are right-to-work.”

Boeing received about $900 million in tax breaks and other incentives from South Carolina.

For the sake of argument, let's say the IAM is right, and Boeing is moving to South Carolina to get away from the repeated union strikes. You must remember, Boeing is not a public service organization or a charity. It is a company that has to make a profit to stay in business. Therefore, Boeing acts in the business interests of Boeing, and it's not in Boeing's interests to have it's production halted by union strike after union strike, is it ? Thus, the repeated strikes are actually an INCENTIVE for Boeing to relocate elsewhere. I saw this exact same scenario play out in Akron, Ohio in the 1970's with the rubber shops. They moved production to the south to escape the unions, and Akron ended up high and dry, with nothing. Thanks for nothing, unions. You drove our jobs away, and they were good blue collar jobs. Our city was left a lot worse off because of it. That same scenario is turning parts of Detroit, Michigan into a ghost town today. Sometimes the unions end up being their own worst enemy. Personally, I'd rather have an actual job that pays $20 per hour than a non-existent union job that pays $30 per hour, but that's just me. I like to feed my family, and I can't do that in Akron if my job is in Alabama, or China.

To my knowledge, President Obama hasn't said a word about the Boeing situation, which led Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to wonder aloud whether Obama has an "enemies list". I'd phrase it a bit differently. What I think is, Obama has a friend's list, and Republican-voting right-to-work-states like South Carolina aren't on it. After all, our President is already in 2012 fundraising campaign re-election mode. He's looking to raise a billion dollars and reward his friends. Cronies unite !

Here's Andrew Klavan of PJTV to explain why you should support public sector unions. Enjoy:

To sum up, public sector unions pay big money to elect Democrats, and then Democrats reciprocate by giving more and more money to public sector unions, all at taxpayer expense, of course. Once elected to office, all the Democrats have to do is rinse, cycle, and repeat. Some might call this mutuallly beneficial backscratching collusionary, but Democrats prefer to call it "the democratic process". The unions like to call it "collective bargaining rights". Meanwhile the taxpayers, who have no union and make far less in wages and benefits than do public sector unions workers, are what is commonly known in this con game as the "marks". The entire process of public sector union "collective bargaining" is designed to shakedown the marks, er, the taxpayers, for money. The ideal scenario, from the viewpoint of Democrats and public sector unions, is to have the bought and paid for Democrats oversee the "collective bargaining" process with the unions. This is roughly equivalent to having Congress vote for it's own salary increases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that vote will turn out ('why yes, I think I will vote to increase my own salary ! What a country !').

There's only one thing that keeps this con from being perfect, and that one thing IS the democratic process. You see, it is possible that the voters will choose to elect non-Democrats to office, and those non-Democrats just might choose to NOT increase the taxpayer-funded spoils of public sector unions, especially at a time when federal, state, and local governments are all deeply in debt and on a path to national bankruptcy. That's what happened in the last election, and the Democrats and public sector unions didn't like it one bit. When the democratic process doesn't go their way, into their pockets, they immediately stop referring to it as the "democratic process", and immediately start referring to it as "fascist". They start painting Hitler mustaches on the faces of non-Democrat politicians who aren't adding to the public sector union booty. They call for those non-Democrat politicians to be immediately removed from office. They protest. They charge the statehouse. Democrats go into hiding to avoid votes they don't like. And if none of that works, they threaten and resort to violence. So much for the democratic process. These thugs aren't interested in the democratic process whatsoever. What they are interested in is getting what they want, and what they want is M-O-N-E-Y. They want YOUR money, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, and they don't give a damn whether you can afford it or not. They don't give a damn if they already make a lot more money than you, have a lot better benefits than you, and get to retire with full pensions fifteen years earllier than you…and then they have the nerve to frame their lust for your money as a civil rights issue, with public sector union members playing the role of the poor victimized souls. Sorry, but that bird just doesn't fly. It doesn't come close to getting off the ground.

Some Democrat/public sector union member reading my little tirade will no doubt say something like this – 'NO, King, you have it all wrong ! This isn't about money ! It's about our sacred right to collective bargaining ! The Republicans are trying to take our rights away from us, and that's wrong !!!'…as if collective bargaing rights are about anything other than money. Don't think so. I was born, but it wasn't yesterday. If public sector union members truly want to sit at a bargaining table and negotiate, let the people sitting across from them at that table be from an organized group advocating for taxpayer rights instead of a bunch of union-bought Democrats or other politicians who are beholden to union campaign donations. President Obama himself even openly acknowledged that he "owed" the unions. We don't have collective bargaining now. We have a sham designed to enrich the unions at the expense of the taxpayers, and when on the rare occasion things don't go the unions way, such as now, we see the true colors of the public sector unions emerge. It ain't pretty.

Before we get around to fixing Ohio, we have to identify Ohio's problems.

1) Ohio has an $8 billion budget shortfall.

Here's how the Cleveland Plain Dealer described the problem last March:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The state of Ohio is steering straight toward a cliff. At the bottom of that cliff is a hole nearly $8 billion deep.

Ohio leaders have less than a year to throw on the brakes and change course before it's time to draft another two-year state budget. And they will have to do it without federal stimulus dollars and other state nest eggs worth almost $8 billion that were used to prop up the current budget.

Ohio took $4 billion in federal stimulus dollars in 2009 to close the budget gap. Obviously, those stimulus dollars were not an actual solution to Ohio's economic problems. They were just a crutch to prop up Ohio temporarily in the hope that Ohio's economic ship would self-correct. Unfortunately, even though those stimulus dollars are gone, the economic problems remain (along with the stimulus debt we still have to pay for).

2) Ohio is losing jobs.

One of the main reasons for Ohio's $8 billion budget deficit is the fact that Ohio has been losing jobs, causing state tax revenue to fall. Here's another excerpt from last March's Plain Dealer article:

Weak economy hits Ohio hard: The national economic downturn has rocked Ohio especially hard, leaving the state in economic tatters with an unemployment rate now hovering at nearly 11 percent — a level not seen since September 1983.

The more than 640,000 Ohioans out of work have punched a massive hole in the state budget, with state income tax collections — which provide about one-third of the revenue for the state's general-revenue fund — having dropped by 18 percent over the last two years.

A year later, and Ohio's unemployment rate is still 9.2%, higher than the national average. Ohio's unemployment rate now is still higher than it was in January 2009.

Beyond the job losses from the recession, Ohio has lost nearly 600,000 jobs over the last decade, making it the 3rd worst state in the nation for job losses. Only Michigan and California were worse. The state with the best job creation record over the last decade was Texas, followed by Arizona.

3) State spending and taxation.

Even though Ohio has been hemorrhaging jobs, state spending has continued to climb. The state of Ohio spent $68.4 billion in 2000. That soared to $106 billion in 2010. This happened at the same time as Ohio's tax revenue base was shrinking from the job losses. And as anyone from Ohio knows, Ohio didn't just start losing jobs recently. Ohio manufacturing jobs have been disappearing for about 35 years. Our tax base has been dwindling for a long time, and as a result, we've seen tax increase after tax increase to keep up with state spending. According to the Tax Foundation, Ohio has gone from one of the nation's best tax climates to one of the worst over the last 30 years, as you can see in this chart:

In the Tax Foundation's 2010 Index, Ohio ranked 47th in the nation—one of the worst business tax climates in the country. All of Ohio's neighbors rank better on this index.
===
These are the problems facing Ohio. We have massive budget shortages going forward, job losses, increasing state government spending, and dwindling tax revenues, along with some of the highest state tax rates in the entire country.

What should we do ???

We could increase taxes by $8 billion to cover the budget shortage, but how smart would that be when we already have high tax rates, job losses, and an unfriendly business climate ? Doesn't sound very smart to me at all. Sounds like that would only drive even more jobs away, leading us right back to the same place we are now, only worse. Raising taxes is what we've BEEN doing. As we should all be able to see, THAT HASN'T WORKED. Maybe some people haven't noticed, but Ohio doesn't have the best weather in the country. Having Ohio known as the "shitty weather, high tax" state isn't exactly going to induce people to come here. We NEED taxes to be low in this state, or business can just relocate somewhere else. It's that simple.

We want to attract jobs to Ohio, don't we ? Of course we do. We don't want to drive them away, unless we're suicidal. I hear people say Governor Kasich's SB5 legislation will kill the middle class. To those people, I say, are you freaking kidding me ? We've BEEN killing the middle class for years by losing all our jobs. Kasich is actually trying to get jobs back to this state. However, in the meantime, he has to do something about that $8 billion budget hole. Sorry, but he can't call the magical budget fairy and make that shortage disappear. Cuts have to be made at the same time that we start making Ohio a place businesses will actually want to come to. We are lagging way behind, due to the terrible leadership we've had in the past (both parties). Kasich is trying to change that, but he's taking a beating in the polls for it. Maybe Ohio IS suicidal.

“Ohio needs to be made competitive again,” Kasich said at a downtown ceremony. “Ohio has been and still remains under siege. So you need to look at Senate Bill 5 and all these other reforms … as an opportunity to set the stage to create a platform for job creation, for entrepreneurship.”

By reducing Ohio’s state and local government expenses, Kasich argued, Senate Bill 5 could make the state more attractive to businesses and economic development investors, “so that we don’t have …everybody moving across the bridge to the other side of the river.”

Whether you agree with Kasich's specific budget cuts or not (the unions don't agree, the Democrats don't agree), cuts do have to be made, and the only areas where meaningful state budget cuts can be made are in pensions, health care, education, or welfare. Those are just the facts. Those areas represent the majority of the state budget.

Liberal groups, as usual, are framing everything in terms of class warfare, saying Kasich is catering to the rich at the expense of the middle class. I say, such rhetoric is not helpful and is in fact extremely counterproductive. There is no warfare. This is as close to a classless society as you will find. There are just varying levels of individual success (and who would want it any other way ? It's called 'opportunity'). Our businesses must be profitable in order to employ workers. That's how it works. That's how the middle class is created in this country and in our state, through the successes of our businesses. It will always be so. All government revenue comes from successful businesses in this country. We must do everything we can to insure they remain successful so they can pay decent salaries to our workers…unless you prefer buying everything from China as you work at your minimum wage job.

You want to fix Ohio ? Here's the only way – attract new businesses to Ohio by making Ohio an attractive place to do business. That means low business and corporate taxes, even if the word 'corporate' does induce a howling Pavlovian response of outrage from mind-controlled liberal robots. Ignore their drooling, because new business means new jobs, which will renew the middle class and increase revenue to the state for government services. THAT is how we pay our teachers, police, and firefighters better, not by taxing the hell out of an increasingly strapped citizenry in a lousy economy. The liberal class warfare rhetoric is for losers. Prosperity is JOB ONE. Somebody should tell the unions that we are ALL struggling now. It's not just them. They should be happy they have decent jobs. A lot of us DON'T. When we return to prosperity, that's when they will too. We're all in this together.

How many of you remember that old Schoolhouse Rock video/song called "I'm Still Just A Bill" ? It explained to kids how a bill becomes a law, providing a nice civics lesson for the children about how the democratic process works.

But thanks to Wisconsin's Fleebagger Democrats, the democratic process has changed. Our new democratic process excludes the "democratic" part. Now, thanks to the Democratic party, it more resembles the "democratic process" Patty Hearst had with the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). Thus, the revised version of 'how a bill becomes a law' is presented below:

The Fleebagger link above includes a Rassmussen poll showing 67% of likely American voters disapprove of the terrorist tactics of the Fleebaggers. What is noteworthy is that among Democrats polled, the Fleebagger hijacking of democracy is APPROVED OF by a margin of 48-44%. A majority of Democrats think it's alright for them to hold Patty Hearst hostage if it leads to Democrats getting what they want. Let's only hope the Fleebagger Democrats don't take another cue from the SLA and start robbing banks to make up the Wisconsin budgetary shortfall. This is not out of the realm of possibility, because liberals, being thieves of the same stripe as legendary bank robber Willie Sutton, also know where the money is…and liberals are obsessed with getting their grubby mitts on it. If you don't believe me, just listen to liberals talk for five minutes. All they ever talk about is getting their hands on other people's money, and they become infuriated when they can't, leading them to act out like petulant children, as the Fleebaggers are doing now.

In light of these circumstances, I propose some changes.

1. They can't call themselves the Democratic Party anymore, because they clearly don't believe in democracy.

The name is an oxymoron. To get some truth in advertising, I suggest their new name be the Kleptocratic Party. Listen to the following definition of the word 'Kleptocracy', and tell me it doesn't sound exactly like the Democra…er, the Kleptocrats:

Kleptocracy…is a term applied to a government subject to control fraud that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves"…the term is a pejorative for governments perceived to have a particularly severe and systemic problem with the selfish misappropriation of public funds by those in power.

If that doesn't describe the Democrats Kleptocrats to a tee, I don't know what does.

2. We need legislation implemented to fire legislators who don't show up for work.

The Kleptocrat Fleebaggers have refused to come to work and do their jobs for weeks now. They should be FIRED, just as you would be if you took weeks off of work because you felt like it. In fact, the Fleebaggers should be fired AND they should have to reimburse the people who contributed to their campaigns. I think there's a great class action lawsuit here. The Fleebaggers have defrauded the public in addition to their dereliction of duty. Nobody makes campaign donations for politicians to NOT do their jobs.

3. Collective bargaining is completely unnecessary in the public sector. Let's get rid of it.

If the actions of the Fleebaggers don't clue people in to the fact that government workers already have strong representation in state legislatures without collective bargaining, I don't know what would clue them in. That representation makes public sector unions superfluous at best, and infringing at worst. Think about it. Under the Constitution, who is authorized to levy taxes ? Congress, that's who. The government. Not the unions. And all the salaries of all government workers are paid for by taxes. So you could say that when public sector unions make demands for higher pay, threaten strikes, engage in mob tactics, and have the Democrats in their pocket, then it's the unions who are levying taxes, not the government. It's at least cronyism, which I could have sworn even Democrats were against five minutes ago.

Furthermore, who are public sector unions collectively bargaining against ? They aren't bargaining against some fat cat corporate board of directors, they are bargaining against all the taxpayers in this country. They are bargaining against We The People, but as I've pointed out before, We The People don't have a coalition representing the taxpayers at that bargaining table. Why should the unions have more representation than the taxpayers who are paying their salaries ? Are they better than the rest of us ? Are they entitled to some special treatment the rest of us are not ? I don't think so, yet the Kleptocrats are acting as if public sector union collective bargaining is some hallowed, sacred, and inviolable right. It isn't. Even FDR didn't believe in it. Neither did labor leader George Meany, former head of the AFL-CIO.

Rather than this coalition and that coalition bargaining back and forth over government employee wages and benefits, let's let our elected representatives do it. After all, that's why we elected them. If we don't like the job they do, then we can elect someone else. That's how it's supposed to work. Everybody always complains about special interests running the government. Well, guess what ? The unions are one of them, and we have a chance to stop it…and we can balance some state budgets in the process.

In the end, public sector union collective bargaining means the voters don't have the final say. The voters should have it, no matter what those protesters with the Hitler signs in Wisconsin are carrying on about ("Waah ! Instead of making $90,000 in wages and benefits, I'll only be making $89,300 ! It's like the Third Reich all over again ! Waaah !!!"…Are ya freakin' kiddin' me ? Go home. Go to work).

I find it curious that left-wingers, who are more than happy to steal away the fruits of another man's labor to "redistribute" as left-wingers see fit, are up in arms in places like Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio, where politicians want to take something away from a left-wing constituency. Apparently, sacrifice is for the other guy, not for lefties. Lefties are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the forced largesse of others, don'tcha know. They aren't supposed to be the ones being forced. That upsets the entire liberal victimhood apple cart. In the left-wing mindset, the victims are supposed to be the taxpayers, always. The victims are never supposed to be liberals themselves, don'tcha know. That makes liberals feel so, so,…well, victimized. And there's nothing whinier than a victimized liberal, even if that victimization is largely a figment of the liberal's imagination, as it is in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio.

When liberals get whiny, they become even more unhinged and illogical than usual, a frightening proposition if I ever heard one. Case in point – Here's what President Weakling…er, I mean, Obama, said a couple days ago, "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon". Excuse me, Mr. President. I don't mean to denigrate or vilify your straw man argument, but who is denigrating or vilifying public employees ? Who is taking away their rights ? Answer: nobody. What is happening in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio is all perfectly legal and democratic. Nobody's rights are being taken away.

Cue the liberal greek chorus (since we're soon to become Greece): Wait just a darn minute, King !!! Collective bargaining rights are being taken away, just as President Weakli…, er, Obama, said !!! That's a denial of worker rights !!!

Yes, about that, o' tragic liberal greek chorus. Let's look at the two million man public employee army that President Weakling commands at the federal level. What are the collective bargaining rights of those workers ??? The Wall Street Journal has the answer:

It will no doubt surprise you to learn that President Obama, the great patron of the working man, also happens to be the great CEO of one of the least union-friendly shop floors in the nation.

Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.” Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues. Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.

Liberal greek chorus: Out, damn'd spot.

I'm afraid it's true, tragedians, and it gets worse. Guess why federal workers can't collectively bargain ? This is classic:

For this enormous flexibility in managing his work force, Mr. Obama can thank his own party. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

Democrats weren’t then (and aren’t now) about to let their federal employees dictate pay. The GS system, as well as the president and Congress, sees to that. Nor were they about to let workers touch health-care or retirement plans. Unions are instead limited to bargaining over personnel employment practices such as whether employees are allowed to wear beards, or whether the government must pay to clean uniforms. These demands matter, though they are hardly the sort to break the federal bank.

Liberal greek chorus (imitating Homer Simpson): Doh !

Yup, Jimmy Carter, the original President Weakling, was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker before Scott Walker was. Do you all remember the great uproar over lost rights when President Jimmah shot down collective bargaining for federal employees ? Anyone ? Anyone ?

No, me neither, because there was no uproar. I don't even remember a whimper. That's because President Jimmah was a Democrat, and therefore a friend of the workin' man, don'tcha know. Scott Walker and John Kasich are mean old Republicans. Thus, the din of Democrat density, and another prime example of hypocrisy from Obama.

Meanwhile, the left-wing hysteria continues unabated. It doesn't get much more dense than this quote from the Wisconsin State Employees union, which said the union is bent on "not allowing this incoming plantation master to treat us like public slaves". Hoo boy. And here I thought all the references to Walker as Hitler were way over the top. Now these poor downtrodden union workers who make wages and benefits in the $70,000-$100,000 range are comparing themselves to slaves. This liberal victimhood mentality has gotten way out of hand.

The left-wing hysteria continued to turn into left-wing expressions of violence as Wisconsin assemblyman and prostitute patronizer Gordon Hintz told his female Republican colleague, "You are f*cking dead !" What a sweet man. Peace and love. It is rumored that actor Charlie Sheen commented, "and they think I'm crazy ???"

Liberal greek chorus: Gabrielle Giffords ? Who's that ? We don't recall.

And the Democrat Senators in Wisconsin (aka the Fleebaggers) are still in hiding, refusing to do their jobs for two weeks now. My only question there is, why haven't they been removed from office yet for dereliction of duty ?

Liberal greek chorus, gasping for breath: Governor Walker and the Republicans ARE like Hiter, and, and, and,…they are dictators !!! (cough)

'Fraid not, chorus. As usual, you have it all backwards. If you want to find the wannabe dictators in this greek tragedy, the perverters of the democratic process, go look in the mirror. The dictators are your own, hiding in out-of-state hotel rooms like the cowardly punks they are.

Liberal greek chorus: Please don't call us names, you fascist !

Sorry, but we have Republicans attempting to deal with their huge state budget deficits, and we have Democrats trying to sandbag those efforts by recasting minor benefit concessions and attempts by states to get public wages and benefits under control as "slavery", "vilification", "denigration", "attacks", "assaults", "Hitler-like", "fascist", "dictatorial", and blah-de-blah-blah-blah. Same class warfare crap, different day. This is human parody. You'd think teachers were going to be standing in bread lines if the Republicans get their way. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm reminded of an old tenet. When someone says "It's not about the money", as the unions are saying…it's about the money. The collective bargaining limits being legislated in Wisconsin ARE about the money, and that's what the protesters and Fleebaggers are carrying on about, so OF COURSE it's about the money. What else ?

Liberals dishonestly condemned the protesters of the Tea Party movement as racist, fascist, extremists bent on violence. There was no violence by those protesters. They were peaceful, and they weren't racist or fascist either, but liberals found a few signs in the crowd that sounded kind of extreme. They used those signs to endlessly condemn the entire movement.

But as they say – what goes around, comes around.

Here are some signs from the Wisconsin union protesters. Let's see if liberals have the same reaction to these as they did to the Tea Party protests.

Keep in mind, these signs come from the people teaching your children:

Here we have a brainiac comparing Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker to Osama Bin Laden because Walker endorsed legislation to be considered in the Wisconsin Senate. Said legislature would be subject to a vote (the democratic process). Wisconsin Democrats ran away and hid rather than vote. That makes Walker a terrorist ? I hope the above sign-carrying clown doesn't teach civics.

Hmmm. Maybe they don't teach civics in Wisconsin.

Ah, yes. The inevitable Hitler reference. And nice move bringing your small child along to your demonstration of historical ignorance, buddy. Fascists are the ones who DON'T go along with the will of the people. They impose their will, as the hide-and-seek Democrat Senators in Wisconsin are attempting to do, and as the protesters who stormed the Wisconsin statehouse, beat on the doors of the assembly room, and shut down the legislature did. At least the original Browhshirts didn't have the gall to call their opponents Brownshirts.

The Hitler references were popular…

Yes, having a teacher contribute 12% of the cost of his own health insurance IS the same thing as slaughtering 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, isn't it ? Who can argue with logic like that ? They must not teach history in Wisconsin either.

If you can't beat 'em,…kill 'em. I hope this protester was standing right next to the guy with the Holocaust sign, for maximum ironic effect. Oxymorons unite !

Hey ! Where did this sign come from ??? Pssst. Quick, sweep it under this rug. We aren't supposed to TELL THEM we're socialists, remember ? We're supposed to deny it.

This last one contains profanity. Stop now if you are offended by that.

Classy. Obviously, an English teacher created this one. It took a bit of thought. Plus, they inadvertently got the "Fascist Union" part right.

There are all kinds of signs at the Wisconsin protests calling for Gov. Walker's impeachment. I hate to be a stickler for things like facts, but….can anyone identify an impeachable offense committed by Walker ? I can't. I'm fairly sure "because the mob says so " is NOT a valid grounds for impeachment.

Given the apparent lack of civics knowledge among Wisconsin's teachers and protesters, this seems like a good time to plug The Dreyfuss Initiative. It is dedicated to refocusing on teaching civics in America. Sounds like a real good idea, considering. Maybe it's time to get something besides cheese into the heads of some Wisconsin teachers, and I know this phenomenon isn't restricted to that one state.

If you want to know why it's so difficult to reign in government spending, look no further than Wisconsin. That state faces a $3.6 billion budget deficit over two years, and to help balance the budget, Wisconsin's Republican Governor Scott Walker is trying to pass legislation that asks public employees to contribute a small portion to their own pensions and health care insurance. Here are some of the key points of the legislation, according to the Daily Caller:

– Public sector employees would still be allowed to collectively bargain on wages, but not on health-care or pension plans.
- Raises would be tied to the inflation rate, unless the state’s voters deemed the employees worthy of larger raises.
- Public sector employees would have to pay slightly higher rates for their health care and other benefits, but those rates would remain lower than those of the average private sector employee.
- Public sector employees would be required to pay 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums; they currently pay about 6 percent.
- Public sector employees would have to contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries to their pensions under Walker’s plans; currently some pay nothing. From 2000 to 2009, public sector employees paid $55.4 million into a pension system that cost $12.6 billion.
- Police, firefighters and other public safety workers would be exempt from the new collective bargaining restrictions.

This legislation doesn't sound so radical to me, but the unions have gone batshit over the prospect of losing some of their collective bargaining rights. Yesterday, I wrote about Wisconsin Democrats hijacking democracy, but now the unions have mobilized nationally with the assistance of their government apparatchiks (aka, the Democratic National Committee, Obama's Organizing For America). President Apparatchik himself weighed in on the matter, calling Governor Walker's legislation "an assault on unions". An assault. Way to keep that rhetoric non-inflammatory, Mr. Obama. Wouldn't want to encourage any violence with, you know, violent language or imagery. That was last month's left-wing talking point anyway.

Now in Wisconsin, we've had: 1) three days of illegal wildcat teacher strikes, causing the public schools to shut down (because it's all about the children). 2) Democrat state senators going into hiding in another state to keep from doing their jobs and voting on the budget repair legislation, and 3) pro-union protesters storming the statehouse, causing the state assembly to adjourn because their safety could no longer be guaranteed. We also have the usual protest references….Gov. Walker being compared to Hitler, Sic Semper Tyrannis signs (Latin for "thus always to tyrants", spoken by John Wilkes Booth before he shot President Lincoln), signs with bullseyes on them, etc. Given the left's hysterical reaction to the Tea Party protesters, I eagerly await their similar characterizations of their own protesters as extremists advocating violence. I won't hold my breath.

But let's talk about collective bargaining between public employee unions and the government. First, allow me to describe how this process should work ideally, according to Democrats. Here it is in a nutshell – the unions contribute large amounts of money to the campaign coffers of Democrats to get them elected to office. Then, hopefully, Democrats gain majority status in the government. After that comes the payoff, when Democrats give the unions exactly what they paid for via "collective bargaining" with the government, all at the expense of the taxpayers, of course.

Here's my question. Who represents the victims, er, I mean, the taxpayers in this scenario ??? The answer is: nobody. The taxpayer is the forgotten man to the Democratic party. The taxpayers are the marks. They are nothing more than endless sources of cash to be thrown around in order to gain political favor. Do you think any of those union protesters in Wisconsin gives a damn about the taxpayers they are raping, even when the vast majority of those taxpayers who are paying for those lavish teacher benefits don't have it nearly so good as the teachers do ? I guarantee you they do not. If we're going to have collective bargaining between the government and the unions, I want some seats reserved at that table for a coalition representing the taxpayers. If not, it's nothing more than a sacrificial feast for the special interests.

The unions are a faction within Wisconsin and the entire country, and they deserve to be heard. But they are only ONE faction. There are many others who deserve to be heard also. If we're going to have collective bargaining between the unions and the government, let's make it truly collective and include everyone. If we don't, it's not really collective at all, is it ? Alternately, we can let our elected representatives settle the issue. The voice of the unions will still be heard via those representatives, and so will other voices. We call that democracy.

I heard reports yesterday that the average Wisconsin teacher's salary plus benefits comes to about $89,000. That's for nine months work. I read this morning that the average in Milwaukee is now over $100,000. In light of this, why are we still pretending this is about teachers being underpaid, or about the basic human rights of workers ? It isn't. This is about a budget crisis that is playing out locally, statewide, and nationally. It's about recognizing fiscal reality. These teachers unions have almost nothing in common with the real labor movement in America. We're not talking about West Virginia coalminers in 1917 who worked under horrendous conditions, lived on company land, bought their food from the company store, and ended up giving their wages right back to the company. Ending that de facto slavery through unionization accomplished good things, no doubt. But we're not talking about that here…so why do we keep pretending we are ? This isn't about worker's rights, it's about unions holding on to power.

I have the feeling we're going to see lots of these battles in the future, as big government must be cut. Nobody likes to cut spending, especially those who are having something taken away by the cuts. There will be lots of howling, but the alternatives are either national bankruptcy or prohibitive levels of taxation (another de facto slavery).

P.S. – How about they fire those teachers and impeach those state senators who aren't showing up for work in Wisconsin ? Isn't that what would happen if YOU didn't show up for work ?

Let's start with this heartbreaking three minute video from ABC News, showing state/local governments and citizens trying to take matters into their own hands to stem the oil spill tide. These folks are tired of waiting for the federal government to give them permission to prevent the destruction of their ecosystems (I apologize for the thirty second commercial up front):

Keep in mind that it's been two months since the oil spill started, and these folks are still waiting for various government approvals for vessels, containment boom, skimmers, etc. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal spent a week and a half trying to get local working barges to start vacuuming oil out of the state's oil-saturated waters. It began working, until the feds shut the barges down. This is also from ABC News:

The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

…the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

The governor said he didn't have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard's decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

"They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible," he said. But "every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer."

In Alabama Thursday, Gov. Bob Riley said that he's had problems with the Coast Guard, too.

Riley, R-Ala., asked the Coast Guard to find ocean boom tall enough to handle strong waves and protect his shoreline.

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

Big government bureaucracy in action. Or maybe I should say big government regulation in action. One department fights another department, and the result is inertia. It's a good thing President Obama announced he would appoint an oil recovery czar to oversee the cleanup. The President made this announcement five days ago, 55 days after the oil spill began.

The same slow motion, bureaucratic red tape phenomenon is at work on the international level. A couple days ago, the State Department released a chart showing the status of all the assistance countries from all over the world have offered us to deal with the spill. Look at the chart. Almost all of that assistance is still pending approval by our federal government.

But not to worry, folks. Our President assured us he has been on top of the oil spill since "day one." You can see for yourself how our President flew into action from day one at this link, where Obama's schedule since the oil spill has included at least six rounds of golf, playing basketball, working out at the gym, and numerous White House parties. I guess there are many ways to deal with the worst environmental crisis in U.S. history, and this is Barack Barry H****** Obama Soetoro's way.

A blogger at hotair.com reminds us that the federal government of the United States is the "largest, best-funded organization in human history." It has over two million civilian employees, not to mention the nearly three million active and reserve military personnel, yet it flops around like an oil-soaked bird, helpless to deal with a two-foot wide oil leak in the ocean, and hamstrung in dealing with the aftermath. I'm going to let hotair describe the rest:

Indulging the urge of politicians to increase their power and wealth produces a government that spends all its time feeding, instead of doing the things it’s supposed to be doing. It is blinded by hunger, and uninterested in duties that yield no direct political reward. The lavishly funded agency in charge of regulating offshore drilling scarcely bothered to inspect the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. It’s painfully obvious that the Administration didn’t notice the Gulf crisis until it became a political problem. Our vast government apparatus was completely unaware of a large supply of containment boom until Jake Tapper, an ABC reporter, told them about it.

Even now, as oil begins fouling the coasts of our Gulf states, the federal government is entirely focused on shielding itself from blame, and taking advantage of the crisis to absorb more money. Out on the high-octane open waters, they’re shutting down oil-skimming barges over trivial bureaucratic issues. Bobby Jindal, the desperate governor of Louisiana, has taken to ignoring the comatose federal giant slumped across his coast, and getting things done on his own. Unable to think rationally or compare costs to benefits, the government panicked and shut down offshore drilling… just as previous generations threw hysterical fits, and killed nuclear power and DDT. We’re spending an awful lot of our children’s money on this government, and getting very little value in return.

No Presidential speech could obscure the fact that incalculable, perhaps irreversible damage has already been done, while union politics prompted the President to ignore valuable offers of assistance from foreign ships. Innovative strategies for dealing with the oil gather cobwebs while the Administration focuses on the really important task of securing a $20 billion down payment on a massive new slush fund. Of course Obama and the Democrats will steal much of this money, the same way they robbed the taxpayers for political cash and called it a “stimulus.” The reptilian Bart Stupak has already floated the idea of raiding the BP fund for health care money.

What is exposed is the administration's endless political calculations, and endless appetite for power and money. When Rep. Barton referred to Obama's takeover of $20 billion of BP's funds as a "shakedown," my only reaction was, what else is new ? Why should BP be any different ? American taxpayers get shaken down at every turn. We were shaken down for the Wall Street bailouts, the bank bailouts, the housing bailouts, the state and local government bailouts, the GM bailout…..we've had our Social Security and Medicare funds plundered by the federal government…we bailout foreign governments….we're running up so much debt to feed the maw of government that it's threatening our very future…

I'm used to shakedowns. Obama came into office PROMISING to shake us down, so why are we surprised when he does it ? As he told Joe the Plumber, "I want to spread your wealth around." Was anyone listening ??? Hello ??? THAT is a shakedown, and that's exactly what he and his cronies have done. So, when Obama bypasses federal law and the court system to grab $20 billion from BP to spend as HE sees fit….what did you expect ? Of course, I'm not saying BP shouldn't be liable. They definitely should, but…what happened to due process, the rule of law, and all those folks who were complaining about unitary executive action during the Bush years ? I don't hear them complaining now.

And as far as Obama shakedowns go….you ain't seen nuthin' yet. He's only been in office for 17 months. Think about that for a minute.

UPDATE – Obama countered the oil spill by attending the Washington Nationals baseball game on friday night, and showed yet more crisis leadership by playing a round of golf with VP Joe Biden on saturday. (link)

1. How can President Obama hold a jobs summit and not invite the Chamber Of Commerce ? That's like holding a football game and forgetting to invite the offense.

2. How can the unemployment rate drop from 10.2% to 10% when 11,000 more jobs were lost in november 2009 ?

3. From 1776 to 1913, the value of the dollar increased by 13%. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was implemented. Since 1913, the value of the dollar has dropped by 92%. Why do we have a Federal Reserve ?

4. Why would the President announce a withdrawal date of july 2011 from a war that is not yet won ?

5. Why would President Obama call the november 2009 jobs report "the best jobs report since december 2007" and talk about White House administration officials hugging each other in joy over the good news, when the november unemployment rate is 10% and the december 2007 unemployment rate was 4.9% ? FYI – the january 2008 unemployment rate was also 4.9%.

6. Why are the extramarital affairs of golfer Tiger Woods a big news story ?

7. If the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, in order to, say, lend $85 billion to AIG, and then AIG pays back that money from profits, isn't the net effect nothing but a devaluation of the dollar ?

8. Isn't a devaluation of the dollar nothing but a hidden tax on the assets of all Americans ?

9. If a citizen continually spends more money than he/she makes, he/she will go bankrupt. How is it any different when the government does the same thing, except that the government will take all the citizens down along with it ?

10. Why would we hand health care over to government control when the part of health care the government does control (Medicare/Medicaid) is already so far in the red ?

11. How can the Obama stimulus possibly be working when it is based upon money borrowed or printed out of thin air, backed by nothing, and is therefore entirely artificial ? (See questions #3, #7, and #8).

12. If question #11 is too confusing, perhaps this will help simplify the matter. Does a man up to his neck in credit card debt improve his financial situation by getting more credit cards ?

13. What is wrong with asking the President of the United States to produce his original birth certificate ?

14. Is there any major Obama policy that is supported by the American people ?

15. Why don't we just put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in front of a firing squad and save everyone a lot of time and money ?

16. How do tax increases ever help the private sector economy ?

17. Shouldn't there have to be at least one act of Tea Party-related violence (from the Tea Party side) before the media denounces the crazy, violent, extremist Tea Partiers ?

18. On the same subject, why is it considered crazy and extreme to be in favor of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, as the Tea Partiers are ? What does that say about the state of our country ?

19. On the jobs front, which Obama policies are pro-business ?

20. Why are Democrats now in favor of cutting Medicare, when they've been against Medicare cuts for four decades ?

If you want to know why the White House wishes to discredit Fox News, look no further than this post. Today, I'm going to post something I first heard from Glenn Beck (cue the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth). This is from a 2008 speech by Ron Bloom, President Obama's Manufacturing Czar:

Here's are Ron Bloom's relevant words from that video again:

"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."

Here we have Obama's Manufacturing Czar saying the free market is nonsense. This is the guy who's in charge of creating jobs in the manufacturing sector (yikes. Maybe the Associated Press is right when they say higher unemployment is "the new normal" for America). Bloom has a heavy union background, which is fine, but I'm left to wonder where Bloom thinks those union manufactured products are going to be sold, if not on that nonsensical free market. What is Bloom's alternative ? Is his alternative some type of government-controlled market ? When Bloom says in his next breath that he agrees with Mao that political power comes from the end of a gun, it does sound like government control is what he's talking about. If so, that's pretty frightening stuff, and about as unamerican as you can get.

I actually don't want to believe this. I hope there's some other explanation for Ron Bloom's words, and there could be. I hope this video is taken out of context, and he meant something else altogether, but I couldn't find anything on the internet to counter or provide more context to his statements. I really hope we don't have people in positions of authority in this country who believe such things.

Several conservatives are now running around saying, 'oh, look. Here's another Obama official endorsing Chairman Mao.' I have to take some issue with that, based upon my current knowledge. This isn't the same thing as Van Jones, Obama's former Green Jobs Czar, being an avowed communist. This isn't the same thing as Anita Dunn, Obama's communications director, saying Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers. This is just Ron Bloom agreeing with one thing Mao said, and I actually agree with Bloom and Mao about that one thing. Political power often DOES come from the end of a gun. That's why our founding fathers designed a Constitution to limit government power. That's why I believe in that Constitution, and believe in limiting government power as much as humanly possible. The more power we cede to the government, the more powerful that government gun becomes. That's also why the free market is NOT nonsense, as Bloom would have us believe. The free market is essential to a free country. There is no acceptable alternative. As our founding documents state, our rights do not come from men, they come from a higher power. Our government exists to secure those rights, not to trample all over them.

"We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama" – Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

"I owe these unions." – Barack Obama

Obama hasn't forgotten he owes the unions, who were instrumental in getting him elected President. In his first two weeks in office, Obama issued three pro-union executive orders. In his third week in office, he issued a fourth pro-union executive order. The fortune spent spent by the SEIU to elect Obama ($60 million, according to the SEIU) has gained the union access to power. A number of SEIU officials have been named to the Obama team. Anna Burger, SEIU secretary-treasurer, was appointed to Obama's economic recovery board. White House political director Patrick Gaspard is a former SEIU executive. The unions also scored big when one of the most pro-union voices in the House of Representatives, Hilda Solis (D-CA), was named as Obama's Labor Secretary. The aforementioned SEIU President, Mr. Stern, says he visits the White House weekly, and has influence over issues from the stimulus package to health care reform to immigration. "We get heard," boasted Stern.

Vice President Joe Biden made no secret of the fact that Obama's stimulus package was aimed at boosting union jobs.

“We're going to make sure that in every policy, every decision, we don't lose sight of the folks that brought us to the dance,” [Biden] said — a reference to organized labor’s support of the Obama-Biden ticket. “And toward that end, we have to make sure that the jobs we're creating come with fair wages and decent benefits.”

Biden focused on the stimulus package, noting it will send taxpayer money through the pipeline to union jobs and specifically those in the building trades unions. "The focus of this administration the first month has been to rebuild American roads, bridges, waterways — jobs for the building trades union,” he said.

The stimulus package producing union jobs doesn't sound so bad, until you realize that only 12.5% of Americans workers are unionized. Where does that leave the other 87.5% of Americans ? Out in the cold. In addition, 84% of construction jobs are non-union. They aren't getting any help from Obama/Biden either. And those higher union wages for "shovel-ready" stimulus projects come directly from the pockets of the American taxpayers, not that our federal government ever gives a whit about them.

Btw, Obama has just announced that he's seeking a 2% pay raise for federal employees in 2010. That would be the federal employees unions, the teachers union, etc. That will cost the taxpayers roughly $20 billion more. While the rest of the workforce is losing jobs, getting their hours cut, and getting their paychecks reduced due to the recession, government employees roll merrily along and get their pay hikes, just as Congress did back in january (a $4,700 annual pay increase). The federal government spits directly in the face of the taxpayers at virtually every turn, and we just sit back and take it.

Now, it has come to light that the House health care bill, H.R. 3200, contains $10 billion to fund union retirees.

Greg Mourad of the National Right to Work Committee called it "a shameless case of political payback," saying Democrats and President Barack Obama are trying "to force the rest of us to pay billions to cover those unions' health care."

Big labor, primarily the UAW, thinks they didn't get ENOUGH taxpayer dollars from H.R. 3200. Incredible. Like we haven't bailed out the UAW enough already. With the taxpayer tab for the auto company bailouts running near $100 billion, Big Labor wants yet more and more, even after the unions emerged with large ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler following those companies highly politicized bankruptcy proceedings that rewarded the unions far in excess of investors. The unions will own 39% of GM, and 55% of Chrysler.

The upshot of all this is crystal clear – If you want something from the federal government, just buy the politicians. Same as it ever was.

Change You Can Believe In……..my butt.

"When special interests put their thumb on the scale, and distort the free market, the people who compete by the rules come in last." – Barack Obama, August 2008.

I guess we can throw that quote out in the trash with the others.