Letting the cat out of the bag:
Where do public employee unions get their money? Directly from dues paid by public employees, who in turn get that money from taxpayers. Where does that money go? Politically, almost entirely to the Democratic Party, as Scheiber admits. Public employee unions, whatever else they do, are (in almost all cases) a mechanism for mandatory taxpayer financing of one political party. Scheiber’s complaint is that Wisconsin Republicans have cut the amount of such public financing.
Sign Up for the Michael Barone newsletter!What’s the argument for that? I understand that those who want the Democratic Party to win every election may think that’s good public policy. But what’s the politically neutral argument for public financing of one political party and not the other?
There isn’t one, of course. And cutting off the funding in Wisconsin explains the scorched-earth policies of the Democrats there against Walker (whom I would enthusiastically support for president). They know that can’t win without this kind of cheating and corruption.
Outlawing public-employee unions should be one of the reforms to come out of the IRS corruption.
I’ve already been donating modestly (as appropriate to my means and the fact I don’t live in Wisconsin) to Walker’s re-election campaign.
Where do defense contractor PACs get their money? Directly from employees of defense contractors, who in turn get that money from taxpayers. Where does that money go? Politically, almost entirely to supporters of increased defense spending. Defense contractors, whatever else they do, are (in almost all cases) a mechanism for mandatory taxpayer financing of one political position.
Defense spending (like space spending) is bipartisan, when it benefits a state or district.
Many, if not most, defense contractors don’t belong to a union. Contributions to a PAC are not a condition of employment.
And in “Right to Work” states (24 of the 53 in the US), payment of union dues is not a condition of employment, either.
Frankly, the low-hanging fruit seems to be getting more states on board with Right to Work laws first, and union-busting second. It seems a lot easier to bust up a union stranglehold by diluting its funding stream, but I’ve little experience in the latter, and only cursory experience as a ‘free-loader’ in unions to date.
The issue isn’t union busting per se, but the evil intrinsic conflict of interest that are public-employee unions.
I suppose my thinking is that it would be easier to rid the country of Public Unions by busting individual local unions than by outlawing them wholesale. Walker’s changes to the Collective Bargaining for public unions is a roundabout way of creating a Right to Work environment for public employees.
In my own personal situation, the union upon which I freeload is woefully mismanaged, and will eventually collapse under its own weight. The “officers” who are in charge of things, including negotiations, are a product of the same protectionist policies that have kept them from getting fired for incompetence in their jobs in the first place, and it shows.
When I started asking questions earlier this year about why negotiations were taking place on items that weren’t up for negotiation for another 9 months, I got a blank stare and open-mouthed confusion. I know that I started some conversations, though, because at least one union board member resigned afterwards.
It would be much more comical to needle them, watch them lose negotiations, and implode if it didn’t directly affect my bottom line.
And that makes it right? Why do you assume we think the process for defense is ok? Your tit-for-tat mentality when it comes to politics reveals your ignorance of conservative principles.