IS GOVERNMENT TOO BIG OR JUST TOO INEFFICIENT?

The magazine REASON ran a great article on why government is too big.  The unfortunate part is that it focused on too few of the variables as much research often does.  To read this article, click here.

In typical Republican form, a 'Unionectomy' was decided as a solution, starting with Gov. Walker in Wisconsin and fanning out through out several other states.

From an article in the Free Enterprise Magazine on 7-25-11 as the fight against unions spreads to the States:  "As unions push the federal government to grant them more power and influence over the economy, the opposite is happening in the states. Many states have worked on legislation to promote job growth, new business formation, and fiscal solvency by reining in both public sector and private sector unions. The U.S. Chamber’s Workforce Freedom Initiative (WFI) has partnered with several state chambers on this effort."

Like most of our collective problems, few are simple.  Freshman Representatives should not think they are qualified to slash budgets of programs about which they cannot be truly  informed as to whether they are will run, necessary to their recipients, and what the fall out would be if they were underfunded.  If legislators were to form a task force with each member taking one program with financial support from the government and do an in-depth study as to its finances, how spent, and what the results of those expenditures have achieved.

Instead, the bunch wants to slash and burn in ignorance.

LABOR UNIONS IN POLITICS

John Huetteman wrote:  "Unions have to influence American politics, whether directly or indirectly, since politicians are influential decision makers on such issues that directly affect the workplace and those that fill them. As the appointed body of a group of individuals, empowered to act to the best interests of those individuals, its members, the Union by and through its membership must actively participate in any and all issues of American government and politics that could potentially affect American workers, the conditions in which we work, our compensation, benefits and every other aspect of a great majority of our adult lives since we will pass most of it working!

                                        But it doesn't stop any longer on American soil. SEIU (Service Employees International Union) is branching out to different countries as American corporations venture out during these times of globalization. Now, more than ever, unions must be influential in global politics due to the constant threat of outsourcing American jobs and the implications of it on foreign workers."

Labor unions extract a great deal of money from workers.  Some good is done with that, no doubt, but if the labor unions have millions to spend on losing campaigns, it sounds that the way they handle the monies is a bit skewed.  It has been my experience for many years that many labor unions are not altruistic.  Their leaders, like many of our politicians, are in there to hold onto their own jobs.  Some unions tend to put up with workers who steal their corporations blind but workers never get fired.  Some leaders have been known just to cream money off the top for their own use...their own land of milk and honey. Pay-offs are not visible, only suspected as are threats and, in essence, blackmail.  We have read about all of these things happening but it is not to say that labor unions have not represented the under-represented factory worker, helped lobby to raise minimum wage over the years, and many other significantly positive to the workers aid.

For some of those reasons, it confuses me that, because of their recent losses in Arkansas, unions are threatening  to vote against Obama or all democrats next election.  If they send their vote to Libertarians, the numbers will not add up to a win.  If they vote for a Republican it will be interesting to see what they get for their vote since Republicans have not been the staunchest supporters of unions.  Republicans back corporations, not working people on the lowest rung  (represented by unions).

That adds up to a rather strange dilemma as I see it.  It does not seem like good diplomacy to start two years ahead of an election to threaten power struggles and what sounds like political blackmail rather than discussions of issues for the people unions profess to represent.  Can it be that union leaders have come to think themselves so powerful they can run the country?