It’s Time To Get Unions Out Of The Government! – Tea Party Nation

It’s Time To Get Unions Out Of The Government! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Jane Galt

The unions got their backsides handed to them in the Wisconsin recall elections Tuesday. They royally screwed up. They misused recall elections, which were intended to remove people from office for corruption or illegal misdeeds, to try to thwart a political agenda that the voters had voted for, and which was needed to save the state from the corrupt influences and policies that resulted from the very act of allowing unions into government in the first place!

 Those policies, brought in by the Walker administration, were literally “the will of the people” and had worked to turn that state’s economy around in the positive direction again, stimulating job growth and reversing government deficits and debt!

 But they also resulted in a de facto change of Wisconsin’s government into a “right to work” one, in which the state would no longer force collection of union dues from its workers, via their paychecks. That change alone allowed over 50% of former union members to quit, driving the unions berserk and threatening a death blow to the entire establishment of unions in government.

 The unionists ranted and raved that it was an end to “freedom to organize”, even “freedom of speech” and they even falsely compared their plight to that of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement ( I GAGGED at that falsehood! ), but in effect it was an end to their power to use thug tactics to force people to be a part of something they didn’t wish to be a part of, in effect, forced-collectivism, and over half the state workers fled the unions, the moment they were allowed to!

 What a concept! That such relationships should be consensual and that workers should have freedom of choice!

 FDR, yes the guy who said; “Some of my best friends are Communists.”, said this about allowing unions into government:

 “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
…

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Unions in government are a monopoly provider. If GM workers go on strike, you can buy Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, etc. But government workers have monopoly power over the government. The unions negotiate with the politicians they give campaign money to, a conflict of interest. This has created a completely unsustainable fiscal nightmare, which is threatening to the very structure of our system of government, puts unsustainable fiscal burdens on it, and indeed threatens to collapse the nation if it is allowed to continue!

 It was purely a survival policy that Wisconsin voters chose, when they elected Walker and his crew to change things. It was either those changes or collapse. Yet the changes were so threatening to the Marxist ( forced-collectivist ) union thugs that they poured tens of millions of dollars into the attempted recall, from union coffers all over the country, possibly from all over the world!

Yes, even Progressive-socialist FDR said that unions should NOT be allowed in the government. Unions inside the government are now threatening the very financial collapse of our nation, as well as others around the world. They do not belong in government and they should be removed from all government branches immediately.

 And government workers should be given the same pay scales as people with the same jobs in the private sector, and they should have to contribute 100% of any pension money they put aside for retirement!

 It’s time to end this elite government class system and its attending and sustaining unionized thuggery!

 

EDITORIAL: Obama cooks the unemployment books – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Obama cooks the unemployment books – Washington Times.

Don’t believe bureaucrats, unemployment is really 11.4 percent

The White House has trumpeted recent rosy employment figures, but in their guts Americans know things aren’t getting better. They should trust their instincts.

Jobs are the No. 1 issue going into the 2012 election, which makes the unemployment rate a particularly important indicator. Lately, the trend seems to be favoring the White House. The December unemployment numbers showed a drop to 8.5 percent, down 0.2 percent from the previous month and over half a percentage point from August. In the “jobless recovery,” small moves like that take on outsized significance.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the last 12 months, a net of 1.5 million more Americans found work. This sounds like good news, but the civilian non-institutional worker population increased by 1.7 million over the same period, and the raw percentage of Americans working has basically flatlined at 58.5 percent. To the extent there are new jobs, it has more to do with the fact that there are more people creating more demand, not with any fundamental expansion in the economy.

This raises the question why the unemployment rate continues to improve. The answer is that the “official” workforce is shrinking. Only those working or actively seeking employment “count” in the unemployment statistics. The discouraged, the dropouts and those who don’t even bother trying to find work aren’t included in the official unemployment rate. The 30-year average participation rate – that is, the percentage of Americans in the workforce – is 65.8 percent. During the last three years, this number has fallen sharply to around 64 percent. While the potential worker population rose last year by 1.7 million, the official workforce only went up 275,000. Counting like that makes it easier to report better employment numbers.

An analysis posted last week at the Zero Hedge website looked at what the unemployment picture would be if participation rates were held steady. Using more realistic long-term average participation rates, the study calculated a current unemployment rate of 11.4 percent. While the Obama administration’s numbers keep getting better, rates based on long-term participation do not. Factor in the number of Americans who hold down two or three jobs just to get by, and those who are chronically underemployed make the picture even grimmer.

It’s twisted that President Obama benefits from a flawed formula that generates a positive outcome when frustrated potential workers simply give up. This is what passes for progress in the jobless economy. A lower official unemployment statistic makes a good headline and a good talking point, but it would be better if more Americans were actually finding good jobs. The Zero Hedge analysis notes that by extending the logic of reporting progressively fewer labor-force participants, “America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5 percent, which should be just before the presidential election.” Sounds like excellent timing, which exposes what the government statistics are intended to do: Get Barack re-elected.

The Washington Times

Related articles

• Cooked Books? Labor Force Participation Rate Keeps Dropping… (zerohedge.com)
• The Stimulus Didn’t Fix Unemployment + More (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Daily Benefactor News – Fake Unemployment Rate = 8.5% – Real Unemployment Rate = 10.9% (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

Teachers Union President Deems Education Too Complex for Tax-Paying Rubes – Kyle Olson – Townhall Conservative

Teachers Union President Deems Education Too Complex for Tax-Paying Rubes – Kyle Olson – Townhall Conservative.

It’s so reassuring to have the intellectual elites in our nation’s teachers unions, like Sandy Hughes of Tennessee, looking out for us rubes.

Hughes, a local union president, is pitching the idea that school board membership be limited to people who “have worked in the education field,” because the issues at hand are “so complex” and too complicated for average citizens.

In other words, all will be well if taxpayers just get out of the way and let the wise and wonderful union folks run our schools, no questions asked. All we have to do is keep paying the taxes, then mind our own business.

This is a perfect example of the snobbery and arrogance that is so pervasive in the public education establishment.

A stay-at-home mom that wants to be on the board? Sorry. Business owners who know how to control labor costs and balance budgets? They don’t have the right skill set, according to Hughes. Public education is too “complex” for them.

Hughes didn’t happen to mention the 80% graduation rate in her county, the 52% of 3-8 graders who aren’t proficient in reading or the 62% who aren’t proficient in math. Perhaps she thinks those statistics are acceptable, and the public school accept them, too.

There’s another issue at play here. Most communities throughout the nation elect school board members. Teachers unions throughout the nation provide millions of dollars in campaign contributions to get their hand-picked candidates elected, then lo and behold, they negotiate juicy, expensive contracts with their pet board members.

Union leaders have clearly thought this through. Some have actually produced How-To manuals, such as the Michigan Education Association’s “Electing Your Employer – It’s as easy as 1-2-3!” In it, the union details every step necessary to elect union-friendly school board members.

The only problem is that, with a board full of union supporters, nobody is looking out for the interests of students and taxpayers. But of course, people who aren’t dedicated to the union agenda have no business on school boards, according to Hughes. We obviously don’t understand the process. It’s all too “complex” for us.

Related articles

• Student bullied by high school teacher (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• The Employee Rights Act – Orrin Hatch – Townhall Conservative (gds44.wordpress.com)

Obamacare Abominations – John Stossel – Townhall Conservative

Obamacare Abominations – John Stossel – Townhall Conservative.

President Obama says his health care “reform” will be good for business.

Business has learned the truth.

Three successful businessmen explained to me how Obamacare is a reason that unemployment stays high. Its length and complexity make businessmen wary of expanding.

Mike Whalen, CEO of Heart of America Group, which runs hotels and restaurants, said that when he asked his company’s health insurance experts to summarize the impact of Obamacare, “the three of them kind of looked at each other and said, ‘We’ve gone to seminar after seminar, and, Mike, we can’t tell you.’ I think that just kind of sums up the uncertainty.”

Brad Anderson, CEO of Best Buy, added that Obamacare makes it impossible to achieve even basic certainty about future personnel costs:

“If I was trying to get you to fund a new business I had started and you asked me what my payroll was going to be three years from now per employee, if I went to the deepest specialist in the industry, he can’t tell me what it’s actually going to cost, let alone what I’m going to be responsible for.”

You would think a piece of legislation more than a thousand pages long would at least be clear about the specifics. But a lot of those pages say: “The secretary will determine …” That means the secretary of health and human services will announce the rules sometime in the future. How can a business make plans in such a fog?

John Allison, former CEO of BB&T, the 12th biggest bank in America, pointed out how Obamacare encourages employers not to insure their employees. Under the law, an employer would be fined for that. But the penalty at present — about $2,000 — is lower than the cost of a policy.

“What that means is in theory every company ought to dump their plan on the government plan and pay the penalty,” he said. “So you don’t really know what the cost is because it’s designed to fail.”

Of course, then every employee would turn to the government-subsidized health insurance. Maybe that was the central planners’ intention all along.

An owner of 12 IHOPS told me that he can’t expand his business because he can’t afford the burden of Obamacare. Many of his waitresses work part time or change jobs every few months. He hadn’t been insuring them, but Obamacare requires him to. He says he can’t make money paying a $2,000 penalty for every waitress, so he’s cancelled his plans to expand. It’s one more reason why job growth hasn’t picked up post-recession.

Of course, we were told that government health care would increase hiring. After all, European companies don’t have to pay for their employees’ health insurance. If every American employer paid the $2,000 penalty and their workers turned to government for insurance, American companies would be better able to compete with European ones. They might save $10,000 per employee.

That sounded good, but like so many politicians’ promises, it leaves out the hidden costs. When countries move to a government-funded system, taxes rise to crushing levels, as they have in Europe.

Whalen sees Obamacare as a crossing of the Rubicon.

“We’ve had an agreement in this country, kind of unwritten, for the last 50 years, that we would spend about 18 to 19 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on the federal government. This is a tipping point. This takes us to 25 to 30 percent. And that money comes out of the private sector. That means fewer jobs. This is a game-changer.”

He means it’s a game-changer because of the cost. But the law’s impenetrable complication does almost as much damage. Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute is right: If you wonder why businesspeople are not investing and reviving the economy, the answer lies in all the question marks that Obamacare and other new regulations confront them with. Higgs calls this “regime uncertainty.” It’s also what prolonged the Great Depression.

No one who understands the nature of government as the wielder of force — as opposed to the peaceful persuasion of the free market — is surprised by this.

Related articles

• Obamacare- They Way of the Dodo – Michael F. Cannon – Townhall Finance (gds44.wordpress.com)
• Obamacare is Self Destructing – Bob Beauprez – Townhall Finance (gds44.wordpress.com)
• Is Liberalism a Religion? – John C. Goodman – Townhall Conservative (gds44.wordpress.com)

The Employee Rights Act – Orrin Hatch – Townhall Conservative

The Employee Rights Act – Orrin Hatch – Townhall Conservative.

Note: Co-authored by Rep. Tim Scott

America’s laws have long recognized the need to protect workers from abuse. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which ensured that employees would have the right join a union ­ or to refrain from doing so — free of harassment or intimidation.

In 1959, after a numerous hearings examining corruption within the labor movement, Congress passed the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) in an effort to bolster self-governance, transparency, and democracy within unions.

But, since that time, progress for workers’ rights has stalled.

As Big Labor and employers continue their ongoing power struggles, the rights of individual workers are far too often lost in the shuffle.  And, as we’ve seen under the Obama Administration, legal protections for workers who may oppose unionization can be easily swept aside by ideological bureaucrats.  

For these reasons, we’ve introduced the Employee Rights Act, a bicameral, pro-worker piece of legislation to bolster democracy in the workplace.

First, the Employee Rights Act will require a secret ballot vote in all union elections.  

According to the National Labor Relations Board, nearly 40 percent of all unions certified in 2009 did not have to go through an election. Presumably, most of these unions were certified through a combination of card checks and decisions by employers to accept the union without demanding a vote.  

Over the years, we’ve all heard the troubling accounts of unions obtaining signatures through deception and intimidation.  And, we’ve all heard about union organizing campaigns and boycotts that have all but forced employers to give up their right to demand a secret ballot vote.  Under the Employee Rights Act, that right will belong to the employees, and it will be guaranteed.  

While requiring these votes is important, it is only the first step in restoring democracy in America’s workforce.  The vast majority of current union members ­ more than 90 percent according to some estimates ­ never had an opportunity to vote for their union, neither by card nor by ballot.  They simply accepted jobs at workplaces that were already unionized and, in many cases, they were forced to begin paying dues as a condition of employment.

The Employee Rights Act will give millions of workers their first opportunity to vote on whether to be part of a union.  Under the bill, instead of a one-time vote followed by mandatory union representation in near-perpetuity, unions will stand for reelection by secret ballot every three years.  

In addition, the Employee Rights Act will prevent any union from ordering a strike unless it first obtains the consent of a majority of employees through a secret ballot vote.  If we’re serious about ensuring democracy in the workplace, we must allow employees to have a say before their union can force them into unemployment and possible replacement.

Furthermore, the bill would give employees more control over how their union dues are spent.  Exit polls continually show that union members are almost evenly divided among Democrats and Republicans at the ballot box.  Yet, more than 90 percent of Big Labor’s political contributions go to Democrats.

Under the Employee Rights Act, a union will have to obtain an employee’s written consent before using their dues for any purpose unrelated to the union’s collective bargaining functions, including political contributions

or expenditures.   

These are not radical ideas, they are simply common sense.  And, not surprisingly, they are very popular with the public.  According to a poll conducted earlier this year by the Opinion Research Corporation, these and other proposals contained in the Employee Rights Act are supported by no less than 60 percent of Americans and most of them by more than 75 percent.

America is in the midst of a fierce debate over the role of labor unions in our economy.  While this debate is important, it should not stop us from working together to take affirmative steps to protect the rights of individual workers.  The Employee Rights Act would do just that.

Blame Obamacare for unemployment | NewsOK.com

Blame Obamacare for unemployment | NewsOK.com.

For two years, I’ve been watching the talking heads discuss unemployment problems. The unemployment numbers began to rise about the time liberal Democrats passed the health care program. What no one’s talking about is that this health care program is the reason our economy hasn’t turned around.

There are other factors, but employers are looking at the extra cost and penalties to insure employees. It was pushed through so quickly no one read it before the vote. Employers’ future expenses are unknown so they lay off workers and won’t hire new employees until they know the “rules.”

Example: Say I have 450 employees. As this plan becomes law, I’ll have to lay off 50 employees and use their salaries to pay the health care coverage for the remaining employees. I’ll be required to pay the health care premiums for these laid-off employees until they find jobs. Depending on business classification, which is determined by the program’s own regulatory board, coverage for a laid-off employee could last 18 months. This for an employee who is not helping my company make a profit. Does this make sense, sending 50 workers to the unemployment lines?

Liberals tell small businessmen “Raise prices to cover the expense!” Businessmen can’t do that; there’s no money moving in the economy for the unemployed to use. They can’t pay current prices.

Just watch, as 2014 gets closer unemployment will rise steadily and spike just before the program is fully enforced.

Tom Fisher, Oklahoma City

Fisher has been a small-business owner for 35 years.

DANNER: Speech failed to revitalize job creators – Washington Times

DANNER: Speech failed to revitalize job creators – Washington Times.

Gushers of federal cash, temporary tax breaks don’t help small business

By Dan Danner – The Washington Times

In another attempt to show he understands the plight of job creators, President Obama appeared before a joint session of Congress on Thursday to outline a plan to put Americans back to work. Again, he proved he does not understand – or does not want to acknowledge – the biggest problems facing small businesses.

The president continues to emphasize the important role small businesses play in our economy. He is right on that account. According to government statistics, small businesses create about two-thirds of net new jobs and employ more than half of the private-sector work force in this country. But research by the National Federation of Independent Business shows small-business optimism is in recession-level territory and the president’s pep talk to Congress on Thursday gave small-business owners little reason to feel encouraged.

Take the centerpiece of his plan: a new, multibillion-dollar federal stimulus program focused on infrastructure and building. Despite two failed stimulus programs, the president still thinks this is a good idea. Unfortunately, we already know pumping federal cash into construction projects is a Band-Aid approach to job creation that did not work the last time he tried it and will not work again. Even with all the evidence against it, the president still seems to think the government can spend its way out of the recession.

The other half of the plan consists of short-term tax breaks for workers and businesses. A payroll tax cut is a welcome help to reduce the cost of running a business, but it is not clear if it will be enough to persuade firms to hire. Few businesses are making new investments today because of a lack of customers and an uncertain tax and regulatory environment. If a business owner does not need a new worker, a temporary tax break may not be enough to push that owner to hire.

The temporary tax cuts outlined in the president’s plan are emblematic of a larger problem with the tax code. Small businesses simply can’t plan with confidence in the current tax environment. Taking the long view is essential for small-business owners to weigh the costs and benefits of investments, such as hiring a new employee. And with the cuts outlined in the president’s plan, business owners know there will be an expiration date. The president avoided discussing meaningful business tax reform in favor of a more short-term approach. This leaves a cloud of uncertainty over small businesses’ plans for the future, especially considering that the president provided few details of how the government will pay for his plans.

In addition to the constant flux of the tax code and the threat of tax increases, the president failed to meaningfully address one of the top issues facing small businesses. A tidal wave of new regulations is bearing down on them from Washington. More than 4,000 new regulations are in the pipeline, with no sign that the pace of rule-making will let up, reflecting a 60 percent increase in major federal regulations since 2005. Last year, pending major regulations jumped 22 percent over the year before. The National Federation of Independent Business is leading a new campaign, Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations, to give a strong voice to the small businesses affected by overregulation because the scale of the problem seems to be lost on this president.

Small-business owners hoped to hear something bold from the president but instead heard more of the same. A mixed bag of temporary tax breaks and an ill-advised stimulus program do little to address the problems facing the engine of America’s economy – small businesses. Rather than the retread, failed ideas we heard from the president on Thursday, what small businesses want is actually relatively simple. We want government to get out of the way to let us do what we do best: create jobs.

Dan Danner is president of the National Federation of Independent Business.

Message to the unions: TANSTAAFL! – Tea Party Nation

Image via Wikipedia

Message to the unions: TANSTAAFL! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Melissa Brookstone

If you’ve seen my previous blog article from June 29^th at

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/time-to-privatize-the-post

“Time To Privatize The Post Office”, you’ll recall that I observed that the USPS is imploding and collapsing.

 Well things have gotten even worse since then.

 http://www.urbanchristiannews.com/ucn/2011/09/postal-service-on-verge-of-collapse.html

 “Postal Service On Verge of Collapse?

September 7, 2011 5:10 AM

 Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, left, testifies during a Senate hearing about proposals to prevent a shutdown of the postal service. ( Alex Wong / Getty Images / September 6, 2011)

 The agency will default on its financial obligations unless Congress permits it to end Saturday delivery, close offices, lay off workers and take other steps, the postmaster general tells a Senate panel.

 The U.S. Postal Service is on the verge of financial collapse and should eliminate Saturday delivery, close thousands of local post offices, restructure its health plan and lay off 120,000 workers to survive, according to Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.”

 Unions in the government are monopoly providers. If GM workers go on strike, you can buy from Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, etc. But government workers have monopoly power over the government. The unions negotiate with the politicians they give campaign money to, a conflict of interest. This has created a completely unsustainable fiscal nightmare and immense corruption of our system of government.

 Even Progressive-socialist FDR said that unions should NOT be allowed in the government.

Unions inside the government are now threatening the very financial collapse of our nation, as well as others around the world.

 “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

…

 “Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.” – FDR

 Yet over the past several decades, unions have declined in this country, except in government, where they have grown and their power has increased. Obama received massive support from them during the 2008 elections and they’ve been frequent visitors to the White House ever since, and received billions and billions in payoffs from his administration and its democratically-controlled Congress. Even the “stimulus” money has flown copiously down into union pockets, for things like unnecessarily wasteful road work and “infrastructure” projects. ( When it hasn’t been supporting illegals, instead of American citizens in those jobs. Oh I forgot – ‘they do the jobs that Americans won’t do”, right? )

In unionized government jobs, workers are spoiled rotten, by a system that lets them put in very little time, then retire at a large percentage of their salary and put the burden for it on the taxpayers. I’ve seen some examples where a worker only had to put in $140,000 over their entire “career”, and could then draw out millions at tax slave expense, from early retirement, while going on to work at additional jobs. This is totally unsustainable, yet the politicians use this largesse from the public trough to get union votes, leaving the burden on the people.

 It’s literally leading to the collapse of some nations, threatening California now, and could bring down this entire country, if not stopped. Yet when countries like Greece just try to renegotiate a little, they face destructive riots by union thugs and socialists, who feel entitled to these gifts, even if it winds up collapsing everything.

 I say “gifts”, because that’s exactly what they are. If you or I work over the entire course of a career, we’re expected to put a percentage of our money away for retirement, and invest it so that it grows. No one is handing us anything, unless a private company chooses to enhance their employee benefits by contributing additional amounts towards their retirement funds, but in private industry that’s voluntary, an important point. Board members are responsible to share holders, and for turning a profit to keep the company going.

 But in government there are no such restrictions and the taxpayers are forced to support the whimsical re-election gifts of politicians long gone, literally for as long as the retired union worker shall live. This is why even a socialist like FDR recognized the dangers of such a system.

 When we were kids, when we’d see something advertised as being “free”, our grandfather used to tell us the story about the term “TANSTAAFL”, which means “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch”. Long ago, when beer was 5 cents ( before the Fed caused all that inflation and devalued our dollar by 92% since 1913 ), bars would put up signs that said “Free lunch with your beer”. They figured that if people would sit at the bar and keep drinking beers, they could give them a little lunch and still make a profit. But sooner or later, people figured out that it wasn’t really “free”, because they were paying for it as part of the price of all those beers. Somebody had to pay for it, after all, if the bar was to make a profit and stay in business. ( This was before “profit” became a dirty word. )

 So the term TANSTAAFL came into common use, back around the time my grandfather was growing up. It was a way of telling people that, there ain’t no such thing as “free”. Someone has to pay for it.

 And this should be one of the most important modern lessons of government. People have been spoiled rotten. They grow up thinking that government should give us “free” stuff, from cradle to grave. But there ain’t no such thing as “free”. Someone has to pay for it, and if we don’t learn that soon, we will suffer the same fate as Greece, and very likely several other nations will now suffer – collapse under the weight of all the “free stuff” promised by the ghosts of politicians past.

 This is something that the unionists and other “entitled” folks in Greece will probably not learn in time. There are very grave predictions for that country, that because the entitled people there refuse to give a bit, it will eventually collapse the entire nation, despite global efforts to prop up their failing economy.

 But the union people in this country must be told this, and face up to the decision soon. Do they want to cling to their entitlements that they didn’t fully earn, and possibly wind up eventually living in a collapsed country with an economy like North Korea’s? Or are they willing to wake up now and smell the coffee, which is not “free”, and set things back to the kind of system where people are expected to pay for what they get, and invest their own money for their own future prosperity and security?

Because TANSTAAFL.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – President Gerald Ford, Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)

Four Ways Obama Has Blocked Job Growth

Four Ways Obama Has Blocked Job Growth.

Mike Brownfield

Wonder who’s to blame for today’s stagnant economy? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to see where the buck ought to stop. Though President Barack Obama constantly points fingers at others for America’s economic woes, his policies are to blame for preventing the U.S. economy from getting back on track. Before you watch President Obama present his latest jobs plan in his speech on Thursday, be sure you know the four major measures he has taken to prevent job growth in America:

1) Obama’s Overregulation

During President Obama’s first 26 months in office, his Administration imposed 75 new major regulations, with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion, as The Heritage Foundation’s James Gattuso and Diane Katz document in ”Red Tape Rising: A 2011 Mid-Year Report.” That’s more than any comparable period on record. The annual cost of regulation–$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate–represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year. Katz and Gattuso write that there are even more regulations in the pipeline, as well.

That’s bad news for job growth, and you don’t just have to take our word for it. Ask the people who create jobs in America. John Schiller, chairman and CEO of Energy XXI, told CNBC that “if the government would get out of the way, from a regulation standpoint, and let us do what we do good, you’ll see us continue to hire and grow this economy.”

2) Obamacare

There’s a disturbing trend if you look at job growth in America over the past two and a half years. Heritage’s James Sherk writes that, following the recession, the U.S. was on a track for a steady recovery. The economy went from losing 841,000 jobs in January 2009–the recession’s low point–to gaining 229,000 jobs in April 2010. But then Obamacare became law. “From May 2010 onward, private job growth improved by only 6,500 jobs per month–less than one-tenth the previous rate,” Sherk explains and as illustrated by this chart.

Though correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation, there’s reason to believe that Obamcare helped turned off the spigot on job growth. The law imposes costly new requirements on businesses, which remain uncertain of what their costs will be down the road, leaving them to postpone hiring decisions. In fact, one survey showed that 33 percent of small business owners said Obamacare was either their greatest or second-greatest obstacle to new hiring.

3) Big Spending and Runaway Deficits

President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus was supposed to create jobs, but instead deficits mounted and economic growth is now stagnant. Meanwhile, all that money intended to “stimulate” the economy had to come from somewhere, which means taxing or borrowing from other sectors of the economy. The result? Less money for investment, and that means less job growth. Brian Riedl explains in The Wall Street Journal:

[L]arge stimulus bills often reduce long-term productivity by transferring resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government. The government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends. However, stimulus bills provide politicians with the political justification to grant tax dollars to favored constituencies. By increasing the budget deficit, large stimulus bills eventually contribute to higher interest rates while dropping even more debt on future generations.

4) Pro-Union, Anti-Business Policies

In South Carolina, Boeing sought to build a new factory to produce one of its airliners, which would have created new jobs in the state. Enter the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which filed a complaint against the company, arguing that using a non-union facility constituted an unfair labor practice. And that’s just one example of the Obama Administration’s pro-union, anti-business policies.

Other recent NLRB decisions include several rulings on snap elections and restricting secret ballot elections, and it instituted a new rule that allows unions to cherry-pick which workers get to vote on unionizing. Rather than putting the economy first, the President has decided to put unions first, and unemployed Americans are paying the price.

Earlier this summer, businessman Steve Wynn said that the Obama Administration has been “the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime.” And when Investors Business Daily asked Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, “What’s the single biggest impediment to job growth today?” he replied, “The U.S. government.” Business owners–those men and women who create jobs in America–know that the Obama Administration is the root cause of the stalled economy.

The American people are catching on. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, 77 percent say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track, and “Americans by a 2-1 margin, 34 percent to 17 percent, now say [the Obama] administration’s efforts have done more to harm rather than help the nation’s economy.” On Thursday, the nation will find out whether the President plans to continue the path he set two and a half years ago or finally change direction.

Tomorrow’s Morning Bell: What President Obama can do to help job growth.

MILLER: Get back to work – Washington Times

MILLER: Get back to work – Washington Times.

Verizon strikers don’t have a right to free health care

By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

Union members are so mad at their employer, Verizon, that they’ve been on strike for nearly two weeks. Wireline division employees, who are paid up to $91,000 a year with overtime and $50,000 a year in benefits, are irate at being asked to contribute a nominal sum toward their own health insurance coverage.

The telecommunications giant spends $4 billion a year on these benefits, and the cost is rising rapidly. “The business model of free health care is just unsustainable,” company spokesman Ed McFadden told The Washington Times. “We’re asking union employees to do what every other Verizon employee in the business does – which is chip in toward their health care premiums.”

To that end, the company rolled out newspaper ads on Wednesday to educate the public who see the pickets at offices and work sites all over the Northeast and mid-Atlantic. One ad says: “They claim we’re asking union employees to contribute to their own health care premiums. They’re right. We think that’s fair.”

It’s not like the 45,000 members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers are deprived. Verizon wants them to pay $107 a month, or about $1,300 a year, toward their premiums.

The COBRA plans offered to employees cost $4,800 to $10,000 per year for individual plans or $10,000 to $20,000 for family plans – high rates that show the generous subsidy they’re getting. “If they had decided to work last week, that week’s paycheck alone would have covered their annual contribution toward the health care premium,” Mr. McFadden pointed out.

Desperate goons aren’t satisfied and are resorting to thuggery to get their way. The vice president of a CWA chapter in Brooklyn recorded a voice message instructing union members to face down “managers and scabs.” He said to “follow them safely, but when you get to a location, torture them. Torture them with chants and noise. Be so loud that they can’t concentrate and wish they never got out of bed.” The union’s political director had the message taken down.

The days of Ma Bell and her government-sanctioned monopoly status are long gone. Verizon now faces competition from cable companies providing telephone service and Internet services like Skype that let people communicate anywhere in the world at little or no cost. The country is moving away from wireline and toward more innovative wireless options. The unions aren’t paying attention to these competitive pressures. They won’t give an inch.

Fortunately, Verizon isn’t backing down. In a letter Tuesday, the company notified strikers that their current health insurance would be cut off at the end of August without a deal. The unions knew their contract only let the gravy train go so long, but they are banking on the company backing down before they have to pay market rates for coverage.

If organized labor leaders weren’t so spoiled, they’d recognize how good they have it. Millions of Americans waiting in unemployment lines right now would love to have a fraction of what these union employees are getting. They ought to pay the hundred bucks toward their Cadillac health plans and get back to work.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.