Cute, except he misses an important point. The people upset about public employees being able to get together to bargain for increased pay is opposed by tea party types just like the bank bailouts are.
There may not have been huge demonstrations in the streets when the bailouts went through (but plenty of people expressed anger), but there also wasn't a huge demonstration when the public compensation packages went through. It's natural for reactions to be delayed, for things to fly under the radar until it becomes a problem, or until circumstances in the economy change.
All that said, the simple fact is this. I have no problem with public employee collective bargaining per se. I do have a problem with the people who the unions are bargaining with are often accepting donations from those unions. The solution is not restriction of freedoms via finance reform, as the central planners prefer.
Rather the solution is to allow the public employees to bargain collectively together as much as they like. And any plans they would like approved they bring them directly to the people in a referendum.
You want to increase your package? Ask the people to vote on it. You want to decrease their total compensation? Ask the people to vote on it.
I would much rather the unions make their case to the public every other year at the ballot than lobby people who they donate to.
Referendums for many things seem impractical. But for compensation of issues effecting nearly everyone on a local level it makes sense.
Any public union supporters -against- allowing the people who employ you to decide what your employment is worth?
Nancy Drew nailed it and it's just more simple logic that the public unions refuse to face (aided and abetted by the media) because they know the arguments they are trying to stage as the heart of the matter are specious.
Anonymous, the comment you're referring to was apparently removed by the author him or herself. I haven't done any deleting, unless we're talking about spam.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat clip! He has a lot of them.
ReplyDeleteYou should have posted a 'Krauthammer ahead' warning. ;-)
ReplyDeleteCute, except he misses an important point. The people upset about public employees being able to get together to bargain for increased pay is opposed by tea party types just like the bank bailouts are.
ReplyDeleteThere may not have been huge demonstrations in the streets when the bailouts went through (but plenty of people expressed anger), but there also wasn't a huge demonstration when the public compensation packages went through. It's natural for reactions to be delayed, for things to fly under the radar until it becomes a problem, or until circumstances in the economy change.
All that said, the simple fact is this. I have no problem with public employee collective bargaining per se. I do have a problem with the people who the unions are bargaining with are often accepting donations from those unions. The solution is not restriction of freedoms via finance reform, as the central planners prefer.
Rather the solution is to allow the public employees to bargain collectively together as much as they like. And any plans they would like approved they bring them directly to the people in a referendum.
You want to increase your package? Ask the people to vote on it. You want to decrease their total compensation? Ask the people to vote on it.
I would much rather the unions make their case to the public every other year at the ballot than lobby people who they donate to.
Referendums for many things seem impractical. But for compensation of issues effecting nearly everyone on a local level it makes sense.
Any public union supporters -against- allowing the people who employ you to decide what your employment is worth?
Nancy Drew nailed it and it's just more simple logic that the public unions refuse to face (aided and abetted by the media) because they know the arguments they are trying to stage as the heart of the matter are specious.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, the comment you're referring to was apparently removed by the author him or herself. I haven't done any deleting, unless we're talking about spam.
ReplyDelete