Lessons Learned from the Wiener Debacle

[Cough]

Tyranny of the Union Minority

I was reading something on Ricochet yesterday on American exceptionalism (and would link to it but their "search function" at Ricochet can't find an article with that term in it and I have to peck this out and get working) about which the comments veered into a discussion of why Conservatives cry about curtailed Liberty when they really mean we don't like taxes. The commenter (again, sorry I can't link to the idiots at Ricochet) went on to deride the conservative position on over-regulation, minimizing it as a "little red tape."

And all this got me thinking -- which is the real point of the geniuses who started Ricochet -- about how many Americans never try to start a business in this hostile environment (I live in California) or are aware of just how encroaching the administrative state really is. And I'm not blaming Obama for things that came before him, but he has taken this tendency of the state to administer business to death to a whole new level. And he has strong allies in this with unions, both public and private.

Maybe like most Americans, you are not aware that Obama's recess-appointed majority on the NLRB has stepped in to tell Boeing where they can and can't do business now. Maybe you didn't know that the Feds are killing the fishing industry in this country. But it is happening, the same way Obama is strangling the last vestiges of oil exploration and recovery in the USA -- even after a federal judge declared his moratorium illegal. (His contempt of court decisions is a rips subject for an intrepid reporter who wants to write real news.)

His contempt for free market principles is what most disturbs me about Obama. But what is harming America is this administrations all-out fealty to Big Labor -- which ain't so big anymore. At the behest of 7% of the work force, Obama is enforcing directives and stifling business. A small, nefarious minority of working Americans many of whom were coerced into joining their union, are wreaking havoc on the rest of us.

This tyranny of the minority cannot stand, and the majority will eventually vote out politicians who hew to the same line as president Obama.

Every Lie the Left Has Told...

The following is an excerpt from the Best of the Web column (WSJ Online) by James Taranto, from yesterday:

It's quite striking the way almost every lie the left ever told about the Tea Party has turned out to be true of the government unionists in Wisconsin and their supporters:

• Extreme rhetoric. The Wisconsin Republican Party has produced what Mediaite.org calls an "incredibly effective" video juxtaposing liberal complaints about allegedly extremist Tea Party rhetoric with unionist signs likening Gov. Walker to Hitler and other dictators. Left-wing journalists are making similar invidious comparisons: "Workers Toppled a Dictator in Egypt, but Might Be Silenced in Wisconsin" read the headline of a Washington Post column by Harold Meyerson last week. The other day on CNN we saw scenes of a Madison crowd chanting, "Kill the bill"--which was said to be violent and invidious a year ago, when "the bill" was ObamaCare.

• Violence. Blogress Ann Althouse, a state employee based in Madison, posted a video of municipal salt trucks blowing their horns in support of the unionists. A YouTube commenter responded (quoting verbatim), "whoever video taped this has no life and should be shot in the head." Unlike Frances Fox Piven, Althouse has never advocated violence, but don't expect the Times to give this the kind of coverage it gave Piven's claims that she had received threatening emails.

• Partisan AstroTurf. That's the Beltway term referring to a fake grassroots movement. Politico reported last week that "the Democratic National Committee's Organizing for America arm--the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign--is playing an active role in organizing protests." A blogger at the OFA website, BarackObama.com, writes: "To our allies in the labor movement, to our brothers and sisters in public work, we stand with you, and we stand strong." We've also received emails from MoveOn.org, which says it's holding a pro-unionist rally outside our offices later this afternoon. Sorry, MOO, we're working at home today.

• Refusal to accept election results. Although Republicans have a majority in the Wisconsin Senate, Democrats have fled the state, taking advantage of the body's rules to deny the majority a quorum. The Indianapolis Star reports that Democrats from the Indiana House are employing the same tactic. Even Barack Obama, when he was an Illinois senator, usually voted "present."

• Stupidity. Remember "Teabonics," a photo album of misspelled Tea Party signs? The unionists can't spell any better--and some of them are teachers! Althouse got one photo of what we think is a woman holding a sign that reads " 'Open for business' = Closed for Negotiatins [sic]." Also, some of the teachers' tactics--in particular, fraudulently calling in sick and exploiting other people's children by enlisting them as protesters--seem not only unethical but calculated to repel the public. One blessing of low standards for public school teachers is that it ensures many of them are not bright enough to stage an effective protest.

The one exception: So far we haven't seen any evidence of racism by the Wisconsin unionists. But we're watching for it.

Greed of Public Employees Knows no Bounds

As events unfold in Wisconsin this week, it is good that people have a chance to see how the other half lives. And by half, I mean the small percentage of people employed by government entities around this country. Last Fall we heard about the city of Bell near Los Angeles, in which currupt officials voted themselves million dollar pay & benefits packages, often while collecting pensions from other municipalities.

Now we have the tableau in Packerland. Teachers leaving classrooms empty for a week so they can circle the capitol in Madison likening the new governor to Hitler. When 20% of their fellow Americans are un- or under-employed, they keep demanding ever larger pay and benefits packages. While we in California were recoiling from the Bell scandal, Wisconsin teachers were suing their health care provider to cover Viagra.

And when you ask them how much you should give,
The only answer is more, more more!

Now that the eyes of the world have turned to Wisconsin and the teachers union realizes how disgusting their display of pique appears to the very people who pay their way the complaint has turned to, "We already agreed to pay more for benefits, but [governor] Walker wants to break up the union."

Really? Where have we heard that kind of poorly constructed argument before? Oh, yes. It is the free market as death knell scenario, isn't it? As in, "No one will let a left winger have a radio show like Rush."

The argument has no merit when it comes to talk radio and it has no merit applied to unions. You see, one of Walker's reforms is to force the union to collect their own dues and stand in (secret ballot) elections yearly to be re certified. They call this union-busting. What it is is choice.

Ooh, the c word! You see, the "pro choice" party is vehemently anti-choice when it comes to any activity other than exterminating a womb inhabitant. No choice in schools, no choice in union, and they'd love to limit ballots to Democrat-only too. The problem in that plan is us. Specifically, there are more of us than there are them. And more specifically, there are more of us forced to part of them (unions) who would LOVE the choice of withholding dues and certification. LOVE IT!

I've been a union guy. I've been a teacher. And the union never did a thing for me, ever. Except take money out of my check. I might get some money back if I live to be 72, but it will be a pittance. (By the way, what would these union thugs in Madison say if the Governor raised their retirement age to 72? Huh?)

So these Greek-like dramas playing out in Madison are a lesson to us all. The naked greed on display is sickening. Usually, it is liberals calling conservatives greedy -- because we like to keep some of the money we earn. So this week and the days to come provide glorious lessons in who the real greedy grabbers are:

• School budgets have risen faster than inflation and enrollment combined over the last 20 years
• More children leave high school unable to read or write at a six-grade level in Milwaukee than in any other large city
  
• Private sector employees have taken pay cuts, and seen their budgets decimated by increased medical costs and higher co-pays
• No one I know has seen a raise larger than 1.5% in the last 5 years
  

So watch the Wisconsin Show with this in mind. You are witnessing the grand beginning of the death knell of Public Sector unions. Therefore, you will see a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth. And you will see the thugs and teachers (groups that overlap some) make every excuse under the sun as to why their unions should not have to seek the consent of those it purports to lead. They know they cannot win free and secret ballots. They know they've promised more than they can keep. And they know the days of leading Democrats around by the nose are nearly over.

So watch them whine and thrash and gnash their teeth. Smile if you're so inclined. For we are going to win this one. The same way my Packers won their Big Game.

MJB Wolf ones a share of the Green Bay Packers, works for a company in Wisconsin, and loves the state. But MJB hates unions. Duh!

First Hand Account: Dem Dirty Tricks

In related news to the October Surprise post below, let me recount standard operating procedure in illegal campaigning. I taught in public schools in California for ten years. Everyone knows that teachers unions (and most unions in general) vote Democratic and then count on their elected favorites to lavish pay and benefits on them.

So far, nothing shocking, I know.

But in 1992 when George H.W. Bush was running against Bill Clinton for President, the union pulled a blatantly illegal stunt that did shock and surprise me. (Now I wouldn't be at all surprised. It happens all the time.) Against public law and school regulations the district I worked for copied and distributed a fax sent from California Teachers Association headquarters in Sacramento. They used school equipment, school time and school supplies -- not to teach -- to campaign for Clinton.

The fax was in Spanish and was distributed to all Hispanic children at my school. (I have no reason to believe that, having gone this far, the union didn't do this at other sites in the district.) The fax made three simple points:

• Tell your parents to vote for Bill Clinton
  
• If Bush is elected you will be kicked out of school
• If Bush is elected your parents will be deported

Nothing like some good clean campaigning is there? That's what your children are exposed to, whether it's this blatant or not, in the public schools.This is what your tax dollars pay for. This is what the "education establishment" would rather do than teach Johnny to read.

October Surprise

So Hugh Hewitt asked for our best ideas about October Surpises that the Obama administration may attempt, in an effort to affect the election this November. Hugh mentioned this in the coarse of reading a Jim Geraghty post from Obi Wan Kenobi.

Yesterday and today bring articles on the administration floating a payroll tax holiday. That is my pick for a likely October Surprise. I also don't think it will, though it has some advantages and disadvantages for the Obama regime.

ADVANTAGES

• BHO can finally finally do something that isn't radical far left in nature thereby distancing himself from the Harry & Nancy Show on the Hill
• As in item above, he finally does something to help the economy instead of damage it
  
• It could be highly beneficial for the economy, freeing up income that could be spent on things people have been putting off
  
• People who work would realize gain immediately, on their next paycheck
• Politically it frees Barry up to ignore the looming expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, as people would have an immediate "tax cut" in their hand
• It would serve to assuage the horrific changes (higher deductibles, higher employee contributions, higher co-pays) that people will begin hearing about very soon as "open enrollment" season opens
  

DISADVANTAGES

• It will come too late to help Democrats this cycle (but then does BHO really care about them anyway?)
• People may squirrel the savings away, continuing behavior noticed throughout the last 18 months, which would reduce the consumer effect such a move would "normally" result in
• Public reaction might not credit Obama with much, because of the looming medical insurance changes noted under Advantages above
• Public reaction would likely include, "See how reducing taxes helps? Now make the Bush tax cuts permanent, you idiot!"

Of all the scenarios that militate against this tax holiday are the administrations inherent antipathy to any tax cuts. Therefore, the largest danger is in the last bullet point. If people see immediate relief and the economy rebounds, then there will be great public and policy pressure to continue tax relief in some way or another. Thus, sadly, the best hope we have for a payroll tax holiday is if Obama thinks it will not work, or they find a way to do it in such a way as to actually prevent the benefits they nominally claim to be for (i.e. see health care and wall street "reform" packages). For example, they could say that the Bush tax cuts will definitely expire in January when they announce this tax holiday. But who knows?

The fact the idea has been floated on two successive days in two different venues by two different sources may indicate the White House is seriously considering it. I'm all for it, short or long term. The more money in the hands of consumers the better, now matter who benefits politically.

U.S. Ends Private Talks on Web Rules

[excerpted from Wall Street Journal August 6, 2010]

By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON—U.S. officials called off closed-door talks with lobbyists aimed at reaching a compromise on ways to regulate Internet traffic, saying they couldn't reach a solution.

The meetings, which involved Internet and telecommunications giants, sought to give the Federal Communications Commission authority to act as an Internet traffic cop without the need to adopt controversial wholesale changes to the law.

The agency abandoned the talks a day after news reports that two participants, Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc., had reached a separate agreement on Internet traffic rules that would allow the phone giant to carry some broadband traffic at faster speeds.

People familiar with the situation said the talks were cut off abruptly. These people said FCC officials felt the Verizon-Google deal undermined their broader talks. The companies haven't publicly released the agreement.

At stake is how far the government can go to dictate the way Internet providers manage traffic on networks they have spent billions of dollars rolling out. The FCC has proposed s0-called net neutrality rules that would ensure carriers treat all content equally, and not slow or block access to websites.

...

For the past six weeks, a small group of lobbyists for both sides had been meeting privately at the FCC trying to hammer out a compromise. Consumer groups have taken to Twitter and blogs in recent weeks to blast the FCC's chairman, Julius Genachowski, for sponsoring private meetings with industry lobbyists. They argued the meetings violated the spirit of the Obama administration's pledge to open up government to more transparency.

A group of angry representatives of public interest groups were meeting with Mr. Genachowski about the issue in an FCC conference room Thursday afternoon when his chief of staff entered and announced that they'd pulled the plug on the lobbyists' negotiations, according to people familiar with the situation.

FCC officials declined to comment on the Verizon-Google agreement but had signaled their displeasure. On Thursday morning, Mr. Genachowski told reporters that any deal on net neutrality "that does not preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs would be unacceptable."

While Verizon and Google designed their agreement as a model for lawmakers and regulators on net neutrality, it includes several provisions that Web start-ups and Internet activists might find unacceptable, including one that would let companies pay a premium for faster delivery speeds to consumers, according to people briefed on the plan.

The Verizon-Google deal also wouldn't apply to wireless networks, according to these people.

Net neutrality proponents blasted the Verizon-Google agreement, saying reports of its contents point to it undermining the concept of net neutrality.

"The potential deal between two broadband behemoths underscores the need for the FCC to act quickly to protect the free and open Internet," said Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "In the absence of such action, it's increasingly clear that cozy cooperation between communications colossi will reign on the Internet."

Google and Verizon denied a news report that suggested their agreement represented a business deal in which Google would pay Verizon for faster delivery of its online content to Internet users.

The companies didn't deny that they have reached an agreement on net neutrality which they hope could be used as a model for future legislation or FCC rules.

"We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet," said Google spokeswoman Mistique Cano. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic." Google owns the Internet video site YouTube.

In a statement, Verizon didn't provide details but said the agreement aimed to create "an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation."
—Scott Morrison contributed to this article.

Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411632530886558.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality#ixzz0wuJQYSWu