The media, both Liberal and Conservative, have taken the position that General McChrystal made a big mistake in letting Rolling Stone interview him and his staff, resulting in a series of criticisms of the Obama administration and its chief oversight personnel regarding the Afghan war that were particularly embarassing to the administration. The published comments, few of which are directly attributable to McChrystal himself, have caused an uproar in political circles. Almost the entire media establishment has charged McChrystal with bad judgment to even agree to the series of "in country" inteviews, or to make - or allow his staff to make - unguarded comments about the civilian oversight.
I believe the whole interview affair, intended by Rolling Stone as a sly hit job against McChrystal and the entire war effort (which they carried off to perfection) was in fact planned by McChrystal and his aids as a very powerful criticism of the Obama administration and its subversion of the US war effort.
If my premise is correct, instead of the General being rolled by the Stone, the Liberal Rolling Stone was used as a tool by the General to stir a debate about the deliberate losing of the war effort by the Obama administration. In its glee at an opportunity to hurt the military, Rolling Stone might have unwittingly dealt a very powerful blow against the entire Liberal establishment and Obama's credibility in particular.
I think the General should be congratulated.
He is not a fool, nor unwitting to the potential consequences of inviting anti-war rag Rolling Stone into his inner councils. The first - huge - mistake is to so misjudge this man. No, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a form of policy insubordination, but done very subtly.
He probably understood that it would perfectly fit the negative concept news anchors have of the military to assume that he and his staff are just a bunch of credulous, unsophisticated klutzes when it comes to PR, kind of like General Patton during WW2. The Rolling Stone people certainly would think that way about the military. And news anchors, by and large, are not known as deep thinkers either, nor apparently capable of imagining this being done deliberately and craftily. Even FoxNews, normally a bit more perspicatious about events making news, missed this one.
Think about it: what would you, a real patriot, do if you were forced to fight a counter insurgent group who knew you would be out of there next year sometime? That makes all your efforts null and void. You become a convenient target, but nothing more. The insurgents have already won: all they have to do is sit back and wait you out. Therefore every American death is totally wasted because the outcome is predetermined by the traitor in the White House.
If I were a commander who took my responsibility seriously - as a sacred mission to accomplish the nation's goals while shepherding my men's lives, not treating them like pawns in some kind of political game but as comrades and buddies - I would be furious at Obama's sellout of the military and his subversion of the very idea of winning.
What would you do to prevent the betrayal of the troops whom you loved and who would do anything for you? Would you march yourself and the rest of your command over the side of a cliff for such an one as Obama? When we have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, it is insane to think that we owe a usurper any obedience and loyalty. To many minds, acknowledging Obama as commander in chief of the military is equivalent to appointing Jack the Ripper as head doctor over an abused women's recovery ward.
Nothing will change unless Obama gets backed into a corner by circumstances - public opinion - energized by the perception that he and his home-team are betraying America's interests, and a solid view that the administration is proven to be held in deep contempt by practically the entire military establishment, and especially his hand-picked army-guy in Afghanistan.
What better way to do that than though the pen of one of the publications that loathes the US Military? And done in such a way that it appears to be a mistake in judgment by the top military people to disclose their real feelings? That might change the rules enough to save the war effort, or derail Obama and his strategy of surrender.
As long as McChrystal played by the rule book, the troops will continue to lose, the Nation will lose, and our strategic interests will lose. So he had to go outside the rule book.
Douglas MacArthur did it with Truman, and for arguably similar reasons. The only difference is that McChrystal might actually succeed in changing policy, whereas MacArthur did not.
Contrary to all the cluck-clucking about "bad judgment," I think that he acted with deep wisdom, even managing to extricate himself from political and military oversight so as to be able to become an advocate for America's true interests. He certainly could not do that as the commanding General in Afghanistan.
The sacking of a Theater commander is a big deal. It makes a lot of ripples and causes people to think about the reasons for the war, and the wisdom of the political leadership. McChrystal did not choose the path of direct insubordination that MacArthur did; he was more subtle about it, and thus, he might have served the best interests of his troops and his country far more effectively than any direct assault on Obama might have done.
I am betting that we have not heard the last of McChrystal on the war effort and the Obama administration.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
"Anchor Babies" and Automatic Citizenship - Is it really Constitutional?
I have recently been drawn into a very interesting and informative discussion on the question of whether the "anchor baby" phenomenon is in fact a loophole in the U.S. Constitution, or a mistake created by a flawed or possibly artificially contrived understanding of the text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
To be sure, the plain language of the Amendment seems to be pretty clear: that is, until one begins to read it carefully and to question one of the less-than-obvious phrases which is typically passed over in discussions of the applicability of the amendment to foreigners' children born here.
Here is a partial text of the Amendment:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The first phrase would seem to be a slam dunk for the "anchor crowd" - "All person born" would seem to take in even illegals. But the catch is in the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," The "subject to" phrase is an integral part of the sentence and cannot be parsed out as applying to another context. Therefore the phrase "all persons born" must be understood in the context of the modifying phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreigner (and his or her children born) is not "subject to the jurisdiction of "the United States" in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore is excluded from the application of this Amendment.
I would argue that the language of the Amendment is easy to misunderstand at this point because it is not obvious what the jurisdiction phrase refers to. After all, aren't all persons who are physically in the territory of the United States, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" whether they are citizens or not? In one sense that is true. If they commit a crime, they will be tried because they violated the laws of the U.S. and will be tried under the jurisdiction of the government. However, taking the phrase in that way robs it of any meaningful application: it is then entirely unnecessary to the understanding of the sentence. However, its true meaning if found in understanding the context of the ratifying debate in the Senate, and specifically with reference to the words of the author of this phrase in the Amendment.
To quote a commentator in the posts following the article cited above from The East Valley Tribune: "who would know the meaning better than the person that wrote the amendment? Senator Jacob M. Howard.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the intent of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Howard said "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." 1868
Clearly, in the historical context of the day, following the Civil War, the Amendment was crafted to correct the basic text of the US Constitution which gave blacks only partial representation and a questionable status as citizens. This Amendment sought to settle the issue of the citizenship of blacks once and for all. And it did so effectively.
But it created another issue due to the poor phrasing, or rather the later practice of ignoring the exact text of the Amendment and its originally stated intent. The author of that portion of the amendment makes that intent very clear. He says the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that only parents who are already citizens can give birth to children who automatically become citizens. He plainly meant to exclude all others.
Under the existing text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners were never intended to be able to travel here in order to have their babies automatically become citizens.
The present situation in which there is some judicial precedent establishing the opposite meaning and application to illegals is unfortunate, but like many things that have grown up in the interpretation of the Constitution which can be demonstrated to have turned the meaning and intent on its head, this is another instance that needs correction.
It is worth asking when did the present interpretation that illegal foreigners' babies automatically acquire citizenship begin? Was it from the very ratification of the Amendment? That clearly is not the case. I will hazard a guess that it was an outgrowth of the late twentieth century activist Judiciary. I have not researched it, and possibly I am wrong, but my instinct tells me that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps that is a question to be answered in a subsequent article.
Again, I reiterate: foreigners should not be allowed to camp out here to have their children so as to mooch off our country. If they want to become citizens, let them go through the front door, otherwise, go home, or register on a visitor visa and follow the rules. Breaking our laws is a criminal act, and no foreigner has a presumptive "right" to American citizenship - especially if they sneak into our country with larcenous intent to defraud our American political system.
I am now convinced that the 14th amendment was never intended to create the predicate for "anchor babies". The AZ political figure (Az Senator Russell Pierce) championing that cause is right on to challenge conventional "lawyer's opinion" on that matter. I appreciate him having the courage to bring up such a sensitive matter in a state over-populated with illegals. Read up on him. He is the kind of brave citizen-legislator we need in public office.
To be sure, the plain language of the Amendment seems to be pretty clear: that is, until one begins to read it carefully and to question one of the less-than-obvious phrases which is typically passed over in discussions of the applicability of the amendment to foreigners' children born here.
Here is a partial text of the Amendment:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The first phrase would seem to be a slam dunk for the "anchor crowd" - "All person born" would seem to take in even illegals. But the catch is in the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," The "subject to" phrase is an integral part of the sentence and cannot be parsed out as applying to another context. Therefore the phrase "all persons born" must be understood in the context of the modifying phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreigner (and his or her children born) is not "subject to the jurisdiction of "the United States" in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore is excluded from the application of this Amendment.
I would argue that the language of the Amendment is easy to misunderstand at this point because it is not obvious what the jurisdiction phrase refers to. After all, aren't all persons who are physically in the territory of the United States, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" whether they are citizens or not? In one sense that is true. If they commit a crime, they will be tried because they violated the laws of the U.S. and will be tried under the jurisdiction of the government. However, taking the phrase in that way robs it of any meaningful application: it is then entirely unnecessary to the understanding of the sentence. However, its true meaning if found in understanding the context of the ratifying debate in the Senate, and specifically with reference to the words of the author of this phrase in the Amendment.
To quote a commentator in the posts following the article cited above from The East Valley Tribune: "who would know the meaning better than the person that wrote the amendment? Senator Jacob M. Howard.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the intent of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Howard said "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." 1868
Clearly, in the historical context of the day, following the Civil War, the Amendment was crafted to correct the basic text of the US Constitution which gave blacks only partial representation and a questionable status as citizens. This Amendment sought to settle the issue of the citizenship of blacks once and for all. And it did so effectively.
But it created another issue due to the poor phrasing, or rather the later practice of ignoring the exact text of the Amendment and its originally stated intent. The author of that portion of the amendment makes that intent very clear. He says the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that only parents who are already citizens can give birth to children who automatically become citizens. He plainly meant to exclude all others.
Under the existing text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners were never intended to be able to travel here in order to have their babies automatically become citizens.
The present situation in which there is some judicial precedent establishing the opposite meaning and application to illegals is unfortunate, but like many things that have grown up in the interpretation of the Constitution which can be demonstrated to have turned the meaning and intent on its head, this is another instance that needs correction.
It is worth asking when did the present interpretation that illegal foreigners' babies automatically acquire citizenship begin? Was it from the very ratification of the Amendment? That clearly is not the case. I will hazard a guess that it was an outgrowth of the late twentieth century activist Judiciary. I have not researched it, and possibly I am wrong, but my instinct tells me that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps that is a question to be answered in a subsequent article.
Again, I reiterate: foreigners should not be allowed to camp out here to have their children so as to mooch off our country. If they want to become citizens, let them go through the front door, otherwise, go home, or register on a visitor visa and follow the rules. Breaking our laws is a criminal act, and no foreigner has a presumptive "right" to American citizenship - especially if they sneak into our country with larcenous intent to defraud our American political system.
I am now convinced that the 14th amendment was never intended to create the predicate for "anchor babies". The AZ political figure (Az Senator Russell Pierce) championing that cause is right on to challenge conventional "lawyer's opinion" on that matter. I appreciate him having the courage to bring up such a sensitive matter in a state over-populated with illegals. Read up on him. He is the kind of brave citizen-legislator we need in public office.
Friday, June 18, 2010
'Shakedown' remark causes uproar - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
'Shakedown' remark causes uproar - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
Another uproar in Congress over a truthful, but politically-incorrect remark made in absolute candor, and even indignation by a senior Republican Representative. The uproar has been remarkable.
What is really remarkable about this "uproar" is the failure of will or imagination of even seasoned Congressional Republicans to take this pass in for a touchdown, instead of fumbling the ball and helping the Democrats run it back toward their own goal. The hapless Republicans jumped on the Democrat bankwagon in denouncing Joe Barton's (R-Tex) remarks opening the BP congressional hearing on 6/16/2010. He charged the White House with a "shakedown" of BP for 20 $Billion to create a political "slush fund."
Right on, Joe. I could not have said it better myself.
But the hapless Republican leadership, never able to execute deftly, continue to drop it give the ball back into the hands of the quick-thinking Demagogues who portray themselves as the saviors of the common people in the Gulf oil spill. They are emphatically not the saviors of anyone but their own partisan power-seeking interests.
Consider: if the government really wanted to do something constructive about the oil spill, they would immediately remove the government environmental restrictions on the cleanup. They would immediately exempt foreign vessels and companies from participating in the oil cleanup. They would immediately get out of the way of the States' efforts to conduct their own cleanups as they see fit in their own waters and shores which they know far better than any government bureaucrat stuck in his desk chair in Washington, DC. And as the final act of the Obamites - repeal any moratorium on the exploration and drilling in the Gulf.
That one act alone will destroy the oil industry in the Gulf, perhaps permanently, and wreck the economies of the Gulf States, especially the oil producing ones. I am surprised that no one has thought of this consequence yet, but a six month moratorium might as well be a six year moratorium. The oil exploration rigs that are operating there now will not sit idle for six months: they will migrate to where oil exploration is still going on - off the west coast of South America, for instance, in the new Soros-influenced oil fields bankrolled by US taxpayers. Production will ramp up there, benefitting the Chinese (and Soros) rather than the US taxpayers. To discover how this all makes more sense than mere speculation, just connect the dots.
But these hearings are just another tired, sad, debacle - covering up and distracting from the main issue, which is the government's gross ineptitude (or could we call it criminal mischief and high crimes and misdemeanors?) demonstrated during this event. The Federal government ought to be the big story rather than BP.
I am persuaded that the oil spill is probably an orchestrated event, the explosion being the result of sabotage of the oil rig - possibly done under deep cover by some agents of the Soros-Obama axis. The timing is just too exquisitely convenient for Obama, and the spinning of the event just too handy in playing into the hands of this regime, intent on controlling every aspect of the US economy and turning our country into some version of Cuba or Venezuela. I have written on this in my blog previously.
I am glad Joe said what he said. I am saddened by the inept way the Republicans handled this matter. It is so typical of them. I call them the "Charley Brown Republicans" after the way the comic strip character Charley Brown is incessantly snookered by his friend Lucy when she pulls the football out of the way as he runs to kick it. He always ends up on his back, as she shakes her head in disbelief at his naiveté in never being on guard against her tactics. She gets him every time. So do the Democrats get the Republicans every time. It makes me wonder whether there really ought to be a third party of quick-thinking and conservative Americans (I don't classify the Democratic Party any more as "American") to truly represent the best interests of our citizens.
Joe Barton just said what everybody was thinking. Good for Him. Bad that no one had the courage to "amen" what he said and rejoin the debate, taking it to the Democrats and corrupt Obama Regime.
Another uproar in Congress over a truthful, but politically-incorrect remark made in absolute candor, and even indignation by a senior Republican Representative. The uproar has been remarkable.
What is really remarkable about this "uproar" is the failure of will or imagination of even seasoned Congressional Republicans to take this pass in for a touchdown, instead of fumbling the ball and helping the Democrats run it back toward their own goal. The hapless Republicans jumped on the Democrat bankwagon in denouncing Joe Barton's (R-Tex) remarks opening the BP congressional hearing on 6/16/2010. He charged the White House with a "shakedown" of BP for 20 $Billion to create a political "slush fund."
Right on, Joe. I could not have said it better myself.
But the hapless Republican leadership, never able to execute deftly, continue to drop it give the ball back into the hands of the quick-thinking Demagogues who portray themselves as the saviors of the common people in the Gulf oil spill. They are emphatically not the saviors of anyone but their own partisan power-seeking interests.
Consider: if the government really wanted to do something constructive about the oil spill, they would immediately remove the government environmental restrictions on the cleanup. They would immediately exempt foreign vessels and companies from participating in the oil cleanup. They would immediately get out of the way of the States' efforts to conduct their own cleanups as they see fit in their own waters and shores which they know far better than any government bureaucrat stuck in his desk chair in Washington, DC. And as the final act of the Obamites - repeal any moratorium on the exploration and drilling in the Gulf.
That one act alone will destroy the oil industry in the Gulf, perhaps permanently, and wreck the economies of the Gulf States, especially the oil producing ones. I am surprised that no one has thought of this consequence yet, but a six month moratorium might as well be a six year moratorium. The oil exploration rigs that are operating there now will not sit idle for six months: they will migrate to where oil exploration is still going on - off the west coast of South America, for instance, in the new Soros-influenced oil fields bankrolled by US taxpayers. Production will ramp up there, benefitting the Chinese (and Soros) rather than the US taxpayers. To discover how this all makes more sense than mere speculation, just connect the dots.
But these hearings are just another tired, sad, debacle - covering up and distracting from the main issue, which is the government's gross ineptitude (or could we call it criminal mischief and high crimes and misdemeanors?) demonstrated during this event. The Federal government ought to be the big story rather than BP.
I am persuaded that the oil spill is probably an orchestrated event, the explosion being the result of sabotage of the oil rig - possibly done under deep cover by some agents of the Soros-Obama axis. The timing is just too exquisitely convenient for Obama, and the spinning of the event just too handy in playing into the hands of this regime, intent on controlling every aspect of the US economy and turning our country into some version of Cuba or Venezuela. I have written on this in my blog previously.
I am glad Joe said what he said. I am saddened by the inept way the Republicans handled this matter. It is so typical of them. I call them the "Charley Brown Republicans" after the way the comic strip character Charley Brown is incessantly snookered by his friend Lucy when she pulls the football out of the way as he runs to kick it. He always ends up on his back, as she shakes her head in disbelief at his naiveté in never being on guard against her tactics. She gets him every time. So do the Democrats get the Republicans every time. It makes me wonder whether there really ought to be a third party of quick-thinking and conservative Americans (I don't classify the Democratic Party any more as "American") to truly represent the best interests of our citizens.
Joe Barton just said what everybody was thinking. Good for Him. Bad that no one had the courage to "amen" what he said and rejoin the debate, taking it to the Democrats and corrupt Obama Regime.
A VAT-full of Taxes
Early in June 2010 a proposed one-cent sales tax increase for the Fire Fighters in Palm Beach County, Fl was successfully beaten back by a host of groups who saw it as bad public policy. At a time when property values have fallen more than forty percent in some cases from 2007, any talk of new taxes is not popular.
How would things have turned out if that same tax increase was done by a bureaucrat in Washington, and spread over the whole state or nation, and no one was none the wiser? Maybe we would eventually sense that things were continuing to get more and more expensive, but we couldn’t put our finger on what was going wrong. Prices on items from bubble gum to bus tickets; from gasoline to hotel rooms would continue to increase but no one would be able to identify which taxes were responsible. The politically-favored fire fighters union would be congratulating themselves, however, on another victory, while the rest of us would carry a heavier tax burden and not be able to do anything about it.
What is the VAT? It is a tax placed on a product at every level of its creation. Every sales transaction is taxed, unlike our existing sales tax system which only taxes the final sale to the consumer . With VAT, the percent of tax at each level is small, but the accumulated tax adds up to as much as twenty-five per cent overall. Compare that to our 6.5 percent sales tax in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The VAT is a kind of sales tax on steroids.
With the VAT, there never would have been a hearing with the county commissioners. It just would have become another line item in a county budget that received funds from the state and Federal government, apportioned according to some esoteric formula that was decided “on high,” far from the teeming masses of the unwashed (that’s you and me.)
The Federal Government is going to propose a VAT as a way (they say) to “balance the budget”. It will totally transform our national system of tax collection and be a god-send to the tax and spend politicians who never saw a tax increase they didn’t like – except those that embarrassed them. But in European countries, which have had the VAT for decades, there is no serious thought of balancing the budget. They always find spending that is more “necessary” than leaving money in the pockets of the producers. So they get nation-level defaults like in Greece, and Portugal, and Spain, and next, the US.
If you think this Recession has been fun, wait until they impose a VAT on the US. But we still have a chance to dodge the bullet – ask where each political candidate stands on a VAT, and if they favor cutting spending at all levels of government. If they think the answer is more taxes and spending – scratch them off your list. The money you save will be your own.
How would things have turned out if that same tax increase was done by a bureaucrat in Washington, and spread over the whole state or nation, and no one was none the wiser? Maybe we would eventually sense that things were continuing to get more and more expensive, but we couldn’t put our finger on what was going wrong. Prices on items from bubble gum to bus tickets; from gasoline to hotel rooms would continue to increase but no one would be able to identify which taxes were responsible. The politically-favored fire fighters union would be congratulating themselves, however, on another victory, while the rest of us would carry a heavier tax burden and not be able to do anything about it.
What is the VAT? It is a tax placed on a product at every level of its creation. Every sales transaction is taxed, unlike our existing sales tax system which only taxes the final sale to the consumer . With VAT, the percent of tax at each level is small, but the accumulated tax adds up to as much as twenty-five per cent overall. Compare that to our 6.5 percent sales tax in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The VAT is a kind of sales tax on steroids.
With the VAT, there never would have been a hearing with the county commissioners. It just would have become another line item in a county budget that received funds from the state and Federal government, apportioned according to some esoteric formula that was decided “on high,” far from the teeming masses of the unwashed (that’s you and me.)
The Federal Government is going to propose a VAT as a way (they say) to “balance the budget”. It will totally transform our national system of tax collection and be a god-send to the tax and spend politicians who never saw a tax increase they didn’t like – except those that embarrassed them. But in European countries, which have had the VAT for decades, there is no serious thought of balancing the budget. They always find spending that is more “necessary” than leaving money in the pockets of the producers. So they get nation-level defaults like in Greece, and Portugal, and Spain, and next, the US.
If you think this Recession has been fun, wait until they impose a VAT on the US. But we still have a chance to dodge the bullet – ask where each political candidate stands on a VAT, and if they favor cutting spending at all levels of government. If they think the answer is more taxes and spending – scratch them off your list. The money you save will be your own.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Oh, Those Beautiful Sunsets
Sunsets have a way of reminding us, sometimes by their beauty, and sometimes by their thunder and lightning, that all days come to an end.
In the midst of an ever-increasing financial burden on all levels of government, we are somewhat belatedly becoming aware that our public sector - the government employees - have somehow contrived to get themselves immunized from real world economics with state and federal laws that guarantee some very good salaries and some out of this world pension and medical plans.
Perhaps part of the reason there was not quite enough opposition to Obamacare to derail it was that the public sector employees, who now number more than private sector employees nationally, couldn't care less about that issue because they are immune from the effects of practically all economic stress - in particular healthcare stress.
At our Republican club meeting last night we were discussing with some State Senate candidates their approach to solving the public sector employee "problem" just mentioned. I made the point that the unions for the fire workers and police had the legislature conveniently vote in some regulations that establish rules for compensation and retirement which, as I said, are out of this world. Local municipalities are groaning under the weight of burdensome retirement and medical plans that are even now at the point of unsustainability and promise in just a few years to totally consume the entire budgets of some cities. California, that poster child for big government run amok, is virtually in that situation today, as is New Jersey and a number of other states. It obviously is not a local problem; it is epidemic.
In our discussion, one of the candidates who has served in the state legislature for about ten years, made the point that we cannot abrogate the pensions that we promised to workers - all state workers too - when we hired them. That statement sounded balanced and fair to me at the time. She suggested that we ought to draw a line in the sand now, though, and begin to plan and budget our way out of the dead end street we find ourselves on.
Reflecting on that statement about "promises", I began to suspect that at the time the "promises" of rich, luxurious benefits were enacted into law, there were already some people who were promising lush support for the legislators who would vote in such largesse. In other words, the promises were on the order of bribes for campaign funds. Now of course we cannot prove that, but knowing human nature, and especially the corruptibility that resides in all human hearts, including mine, I would not be surprised that I have hit the nail on the head. Campaign support from public sector unions at a certain point in time, before the benefit costs began to run away, might have seemed like a simple thing to vote for - a kind of "no-brainer", and no one was thinking of the future effects of such legislation. And after all, don't public workers, especially those involved in safety, deserve to receive good compensation and benefits?
So the "promises" made were made at best unwise, and at worse, made as a quid pro quo for some political support. Perhaps that is "politics as usual" but it is bad public policy at any time to benefit one special group at the expense of all the taxpayers.
The Police and Fire workers' unions have gotten themselves a deal that is much better than the free marketplace would pay them and they are not about to let it slip. Any candidate that is unwise enough to stand against them is sure to find him or her-self on the receiving end of a vitriolic negative campaign come re-election time. And woe unto those who are running against the unions for their first office.
But something has to give.
The liabilities are already consuming more than fifty percent of some municipal budgets, and those expenditures are non-discretionary: the cities must pay or be in legal default. Why? Because the State legislature passed a law mandating it that way.
So what is the solution? For one, the law needs to be repealed or modified so that the workers have to negotiate with the municipalities in good faith, not with the legislative gun to their heads.
The candidates' suggestion of drawing a line in the sand and curtailing further entitlements is a great idea too, and would be something that reasonable people of all party stripes could agree upon.
Also, I suggest that a general principle be adopted that all regulations - across the board - have sunset provisions embedded into them. That would cause a lot of scurrilous legislation and regulation to simply die a natural death. We all die some time; why not government laws and regulations too?
As for sun-setting special privileges and exemptions from market forces, who says that commitments made unwisely are not subject to being re-opened and examined in the light of new circumstances? When was it ever wise to vote for lush pension plans for privileged state employees? How can that ever have been good public policy?
And that is why I favor creating a good sunset on unbridled benefits to certain privileged job categories. They never should have had it so good, and those who voted for those laws did not represent the best interests of all our citizens. We all desire to see a good sunset to our fiscal problems. We just have to have the courage and wisdom to see it done.
In the midst of an ever-increasing financial burden on all levels of government, we are somewhat belatedly becoming aware that our public sector - the government employees - have somehow contrived to get themselves immunized from real world economics with state and federal laws that guarantee some very good salaries and some out of this world pension and medical plans.
Perhaps part of the reason there was not quite enough opposition to Obamacare to derail it was that the public sector employees, who now number more than private sector employees nationally, couldn't care less about that issue because they are immune from the effects of practically all economic stress - in particular healthcare stress.
At our Republican club meeting last night we were discussing with some State Senate candidates their approach to solving the public sector employee "problem" just mentioned. I made the point that the unions for the fire workers and police had the legislature conveniently vote in some regulations that establish rules for compensation and retirement which, as I said, are out of this world. Local municipalities are groaning under the weight of burdensome retirement and medical plans that are even now at the point of unsustainability and promise in just a few years to totally consume the entire budgets of some cities. California, that poster child for big government run amok, is virtually in that situation today, as is New Jersey and a number of other states. It obviously is not a local problem; it is epidemic.
In our discussion, one of the candidates who has served in the state legislature for about ten years, made the point that we cannot abrogate the pensions that we promised to workers - all state workers too - when we hired them. That statement sounded balanced and fair to me at the time. She suggested that we ought to draw a line in the sand now, though, and begin to plan and budget our way out of the dead end street we find ourselves on.
Reflecting on that statement about "promises", I began to suspect that at the time the "promises" of rich, luxurious benefits were enacted into law, there were already some people who were promising lush support for the legislators who would vote in such largesse. In other words, the promises were on the order of bribes for campaign funds. Now of course we cannot prove that, but knowing human nature, and especially the corruptibility that resides in all human hearts, including mine, I would not be surprised that I have hit the nail on the head. Campaign support from public sector unions at a certain point in time, before the benefit costs began to run away, might have seemed like a simple thing to vote for - a kind of "no-brainer", and no one was thinking of the future effects of such legislation. And after all, don't public workers, especially those involved in safety, deserve to receive good compensation and benefits?
So the "promises" made were made at best unwise, and at worse, made as a quid pro quo for some political support. Perhaps that is "politics as usual" but it is bad public policy at any time to benefit one special group at the expense of all the taxpayers.
The Police and Fire workers' unions have gotten themselves a deal that is much better than the free marketplace would pay them and they are not about to let it slip. Any candidate that is unwise enough to stand against them is sure to find him or her-self on the receiving end of a vitriolic negative campaign come re-election time. And woe unto those who are running against the unions for their first office.
But something has to give.
The liabilities are already consuming more than fifty percent of some municipal budgets, and those expenditures are non-discretionary: the cities must pay or be in legal default. Why? Because the State legislature passed a law mandating it that way.
So what is the solution? For one, the law needs to be repealed or modified so that the workers have to negotiate with the municipalities in good faith, not with the legislative gun to their heads.
The candidates' suggestion of drawing a line in the sand and curtailing further entitlements is a great idea too, and would be something that reasonable people of all party stripes could agree upon.
Also, I suggest that a general principle be adopted that all regulations - across the board - have sunset provisions embedded into them. That would cause a lot of scurrilous legislation and regulation to simply die a natural death. We all die some time; why not government laws and regulations too?
As for sun-setting special privileges and exemptions from market forces, who says that commitments made unwisely are not subject to being re-opened and examined in the light of new circumstances? When was it ever wise to vote for lush pension plans for privileged state employees? How can that ever have been good public policy?
And that is why I favor creating a good sunset on unbridled benefits to certain privileged job categories. They never should have had it so good, and those who voted for those laws did not represent the best interests of all our citizens. We all desire to see a good sunset to our fiscal problems. We just have to have the courage and wisdom to see it done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)