What Happened To Civility

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

And You Thought the Communist Party Was Dead

"'All men are created equal' says the American Declaration of Independence. All men shall be kept equal' say the Socialists." Winston Churchill

When the Berlin Wall fell and the former Soviet Union collapsed people around the world celebrated the demise of communism and the philosophy of Karl Mark. We thought that after 70 years and over 60,000 million dead this evil system had finally, like Nazism, been consigned to the trash heap of history. Only in places like Cuba, Rwanda, Venezuela, and China were the last vestiges of Marxism and Leninism left. Even China, the largest of the communist countries, has changed from a pure communist state in the image of Mao Tse Tung to one of an totalitarian state where capitalism reigns.

Well, Marxist Communism is not dead in the United States. We still have thousands of useful idiots roaming our college campuses and the internet. The latest example is the tour of the Little Red Bus. What, you ask is the Little Red Bus Well; it’s a touring group of Marxists traveling around the country peddling their Marxists utopian philosophy. It‘s communism that’s about 40 feet long and rolls along on four wheels and it could be coming to a town near you. They believe all our problems are caused by the evils of capitalism, and of course racism.

The Southern California Young Communist League (YCL), a branch of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), announced on its website that it’s launching a “National Red School-Bus Tour.” The YCL calls each stop on the tour “weekend long schools” for “young activists.” So what exactly is this tour all about?

The blog P/Oed Patriot broke the story after it went digging. Here’s what it found: According to the SoCal YCL’s website the “Schools” will include: “lively classes and discussions: Marxism and the Political Moment: Building the movement for change; The Crisis of Capitalism Today: Causes of Crisis and the Class Struggle; Working Class and the Labor Movement; Racism, Immigrant Rights, women’s rights, LGTB rights and the struggle for equality; The CPUSA and YCL, envisioning Bill of Rights Socialism and how to get there. Also plenty of cultural, social and recreational activities.” The group even has a video advertising the event:

The YCL doesn’t say exactly what the above-mentioned classes will include. But P/Oed Patriot, who notes that the Southern California YCL has a motto of “youth unite and fight,” wonders if the group’s mission statement could offer a glimpse. According to that statement, violent revolution is sometimes a necessary part of the “struggle”:

“We do not believe in violence simply as a means to an end. However, we support all forms of revolution, which historically have included violent forms but only were they successful or lasting and positive when the circumstances had called for it, when the assessment was correct (under fascism, extremely repressive and life-threatening conditions are set in place and creates justifiable responses) and ultimately if the end result is the achievement of a democratic, just society.”

That leaves P/Oed Patriot left with one question: Can we assume that if the conditions were right where a Violent Communist/Socialist Revolution could be Lasting and Successful that they would attempt it? Conditions like — let’s say — an Economic Crisis/Financial Meltdown in the United States?

Nah.. That’s Crazy…It would Never Happen

The tour is set to make stops in Los Angeles, Texas, Florida, and the Northeast between February and April. So if you see a large, red school bus rolling down the street, it’s not Elmo peddling free internet, it’s just your friendly neighborhood communists.

It seems that our colleges and universities have been turning out these useful idiots while we have been basking in the sunlight of the end of the Cold War. The radical, leftists professors who fill our universities have no idea of what communism is or stands for. Many of them have been indoctrinated by a past generation of leftist and are now passing their clap trap on to a new generation of youth who are sopping it up like a drunk swigs booze.

I have seen, first hand, the effects a communist government has on its people. These bone-headed radical professors and their wild eyed protégés have never set foot in a country suffering under a communist dictatorship. Believe me it is no utopia. Why is it that the people who have lived under communism were so happy to shed its yoke while those what have grown up and flourished in freedom are so anxious to embrace the immorality and evils of communism? Communism is alive and well in California.

Why The Democrat Party Is Ruining The Country

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. — Winston Churchill

In previous blogs I have written that I was raised in a family devoted to the Democrat Party. They believed in FDR and his progressive programs and all but my father belonged to unions. To my knowledge no one in the family ever voted for a Republican. The first vote I ever cast was for John Kennedy in 1960.

While they were Democrats they were also conservative. They were anti-communist, anti-big government and not in favor of higher taxes. When I look back I find it hard to understand why they were Democrats — perhaps it was a Depression syndrome. I think they also looked upon Republicans as “those rich people who lived in Shaker Heights. I can attest, however, that they voted for candidates endorsed by their unions, candidates that were always Democrats.

I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, a traditional “rust belt” union town. A few of the larger employers were: Republic Steel, General Motors, Lincoln Electric, and Union Carbide. These were all union shops and this is why the City and County were run by Democrats — they had the support of the unions. I can recall hearing time and time again that the problems in Ohio were caused by “those down-state Republicans” who controlled the state legislature.

At this time there were no unions for public sector workers in Ohio or Cleveland, but if you worked for the City or Cuyahoga County you were assessed 5% of your pay to support the reelection of the City or County officials. This is how the Democrat party maintained control of the city and county government.

With the advent of public sector unions in the late 1950s big city, county and state governments began taking advantage of this opportunity. In 1958, when New York City Mayor Robert Wagner signed an executive order allowing civil service workers to unionize. It was an obvious appeal to union voters. A Wagner aide suggested that city workers would be a large enough constituency to guarantee his re-election. He was right on the money. There have been rare instances when big cities elected Republican mayors — New York with Giuliani and Los Angele with Riordan. It was a bit different at the state level as more nonunion workers were thrown into the electorate. There are a few exceptions like California where there are about 1.5 million public sector unionized workers. The Democrat, Jerry Brown, was elected by a 1.3 million vote plurality over his Republican candidate Meg Whitman. With this enslaved public sector union support for the Democrat party it is doubtful California will ever be controlled by the Republicans. Some counties and districts will have Republican leadership, but the demographic power of the coastal counties will maintain the Democrat party.

Every big city that has been run by the Democrat party is a economic, cultural and social disaster. They have the highest crime rates, lowest education results, failing infrastructure, declining tax base and no money. The unemployment is high due to businesses fleeing the cities and moving to the more business friendly climes of the south or overseas to India or China. This symbiotic relationship between the Democrat party and the public sector unions is destroying the nation — at all levels of government. The real employer — the tax payer — has no voice in the negotiations with the unions.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics public sector union employees earn 45% more total compensation than their private sector counterparts. In the last election the three largest public sector unions (SEIU, AFSCME and the NEA) gave a combined $103* million dollars to national candidates — 95% to Democrats. Keep in mind, even though this is money collected from member’s dues its really tax payer money. Unlike a Teamster who works for a private company and has dues collected from his wages the public sector union member has their dues collected from wages paid by the tax payer. In essence the government is a collection agency for the unions that keep them in power. This is a graveyard spiral for our fiscal health.

What do we get from a public sector union member? Have you been to your local DMV office recently? Recently a friend of mine related a story concerning a public sector employee. He has business at the local courthouse on the day after Presidents Day and noticed a sign on the door stating that the courthouse would be closed on Presidents Day. When my friend suggested to the deputy, who was clearing him through security, that he should remove the sign the deputy replied that was not his job, it was the job of maintenance to remove the sign.

Measured from the end of the Korean War (1953) to the year before the financial crisis (2007), federal spending had actually declined as a share of GDP, from 20.4% to 19.6%. Since the 1960s, federal spending has exhibited no persistent upward or downward trend. Periods of rising federal expenditure have been followed by periods of declining outlays, measured relative to GDP. The federal government has grown substantially over the entire period, of course, but this growth has been roughly in line with that of the overall U.S. economy. By contrast, over the past 60 years, state and local government expenditures have doubled as a share of the economy, from 7.7% of GDP in 1950 to 15.5% in 2009. Since 1950, state and local spending has grown at an 8.1% annual rate, fast enough to double the size of state and local government every 8 or 9 years.

Perhaps this growth might not be so bad, depending on where those incremental expenditures are allocated. If the much higher spending were directed towards improved infrastructure, perhaps it could be considered money well spent. But that’s not the case. Data from the BEA shows that gross state and local investment — spending on things like roads, hospitals, prisons, highways, ports, and transit systems — has virtually flat-lined as a share of GDP since 1950 while the rest of the state and local spending has increased by 130% since then — mostly for the increased cost of government salaries, benefits and unfunded guaranteed pension plans.

According to BLS, 7.9 million public sector workers belong to unions, more than the 7.4 million private sector unionized workers. Of these 7.9 million unionized public employees, less than 2.75 million are federal workers. The remaining 5.1 million — nearly two-thirds of the total — are state and local employees. As a consequence, if escalating compensation costs are a main driver of government spending, one would anticipate seeing larger increases at the state and local level. This is what is killing the economies of the states and causing increases in taxes and fees. This immoral and perhaps illegal alliance between the Democrat party and the public sector unions is ruining the country.

This alliance is driven by greed and selfishness. Just look at the goings on in Madison, Wisconsin. Public sector union members (mainly school teachers) acting like spoiled and selfish children. Beating and banging on pots and pan, out shouting any one in opposition to their point of view, mostly ignorant of the issues or history of public sector unions and demanding their collective barging rights. I have news for them collective bargaining for public sector unions is not a right. They say it’s not about the money. Well we are adult enough to know that when someone claims it’s not about the money it usually is.

We have Democrat politicians running away from their responsibilities as elected officials because they cannot have their way. What if all Republicans had left Congress and hidden away in Bimini during the health care debates. They knew they did not have the votes to stop the bill, but they stayed and fought for the people who elected them — and with Tea Party support have begun to win their position. These Democrat legislators who are hiding in Illinois are saying we don’t care about elections. If we can’t have our way — a way we have had for the past 40 years — we will not play in your game. We are used to power and we can’t stand it when the people challenge it.

What is the free market value of a public union school teacher? We don’t really know because there is no free market in education. If results matter then their value is pretty low. What if teachers were compensated based on the success of their students in the real world? As a former consultant and seminar trainer I was evaluated on the value I brought to the client or program. After each seminar I was evaluated on my performance and contribution to the value of the organization. If my evaluations were not good I surely would not be invited back — in essence in, the words of Donald Trump, I would be fired. Why can’t we have the same policies for public union teachers? Teachers in the private schools certainly are accountable for the success of their students.

As Bill McGurn points out in a recent Wall Street Journal column, “public sector unions don’t just have to worry about a taxpayer revolt. They also must be concerned about a mutiny among private sector unions. Private sector unions with insight into corporate balance sheets and market competition recognize that $1 million pensions are unrealistic burdens to place on employers. Attempts to change the subject and blame “corporate greed” simply do not resonate. Put simply, it is difficult to conceive a way to address the current – and projected – state fiscal crisis without dramatic reductions in state and local employee benefits” – and numbers.”

If Gov. Walker is successful in his attempts to end collective bargaining for public sector workers in Wisconsin we may be as Winston Churchill stated; “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

* Correction. This figure is for a 30 year period and represents only the three unions listed. Other public service unions and state and local contributions are not included.

Why I Dislike Unions — All Unions

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service — Franklin Roosevelt — Letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937.
 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the patron saint of the American labor movement, was a man of strong character and patrician with liberal progressive beliefs. One has to look no further than the heroic way he coped with his crippling polio. This dreadful disease undoubtedly made him the consummate realist he was, especially in regards to he looming threat posed by Adolph Hitler.
 

For example, although he had a lock on labor's vote, he expressed caution about public sector unions. In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:

"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the 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 ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...

"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 ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."
 

To get this in historical context, Congress enacted the landmark National Labor Relations Act ("Wagner Act") in 1935 - the Magna Carta of the American labor movement. It excluded federal, state and local employees. It created the National Labor Relations Board to enforce the rights of labor. Employers were legally obligated to bargain collectively with their employees. In 1937 in a Senate speech, Roosevelt intoned, "The denial or observance of this right means the difference between despotism and democracy." (One would be led to think that before 1935, America was not a democracy.)
 

But FDR had no inkling of what the end game would be. In 1958, New York City Mayor Robert Wagner signed an executive order allowing civil service workers to unionize. It was an obvious appeal to union voters. A Wagner aide suggested that city workers would be a large enough constituency to guarantee his re-election.
 

This opened up the floodgates around the country as other Democratic legislators followed Wagner's lead. In 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to enact public employee collective bargaining laws. President John F. Kennedy then followed with an executive order granting federal employees the right to bargain collectively. As journalist Roger Lowenstein wrote in his recent book detailing the explosion of government pension debt, "Membership in public unions rose exponentially."
 

California, the state with the largest number of public sector union members in he nation followed suit in 1978 when Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the infamous Dill Act, which gave California’s civil service workers the right for collective bargaining. Since Brown gave them a green light in the 1970s, public employee unions have become a muscular, dominating force in California politics. State employee unions spent a whopping $31.7 million on state races just from 2001-2006, according to the California Fair Political Practices commission —higher than any other group, including corporations. The majority-Democrat California legislature has voted accordingly. Also, in the 2010 gubernatorial election Brown was insured the votes of the 1.5 million unionized public sector workers in California — a number well more than adequate to give him he governorship. The largest of these unions being the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
 

In 2009, private sector union members were outnumbered by their public sector brethren for the first time. Some private sector union officials are warning their public sector counterparts that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg with their greed. Click here for more information.
 

Federal employees have been enjoying a boom in employment and compensation and benefits at the expense of taxpayers. Local governments can't threaten to move elsewhere; nor do they have any threat from foreign competition, both of which decimated private industry, and in turn, its union membership. One expert tells us that "one-third of the so-called stimulus money went to state and local governments to avoid layoffs of public employees."
  

Most of us don't have a sense of where this is all heading. On the private sector side, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., proposed a massive bailout for underfunded union pension plans in March. Private pension funds are estimated to be underfunded by $165 billion. This legislation would create a special fund for unions within the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), courtesy of taxpayers, as an "obligation of the United States" rather than an obligation of the PBGC through its insurance premiums.
 

It is guesstimated that state and local retirement plans are underfunded by several trillion dollars. On the public sector side, we will probably see more municipalities declaring bankruptcy. Federal workers pretty much have a stranglehold over taxpayers as well as state employees.
 

In many states, union lobbyists made certain these benefits were contractual and constitutionally or statutorily protected. But many states - particularly the Democratic strongholds of Illinois, California and New York - will simply run out of money. Some states may simply stop paying these generous benefits; but more likely, they will press the federal government for bailouts. That means us —the taxpayers again.
 

What happened is precisely what FDR told the unions. "The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for officials to bind the employer ..." Wrong. Unions make certain that taxpayers are on the hook.

The problem is there is no "collective bargaining." Public sector unions are a client of a Democratic bureaucracy that wants their vote. The taxpayer — the "employer" — isn't a player in the bargaining process.
 

When I was a public sector employee (1962 to 1972 — California Division of Highways) I was not a member of a public sector union. There was no Dill Act and no collective bargaining at his time. It never occurred to me that I should be a member of a union. I was a professional and believed that I worked in the public sector because I was serving the people of the state building freeways. We made less than our private sector counterparts, but we were told we had better job security. 
 

During my tenure in the civil service I saw many abuses within the system. I saw people studying for promotional exams on state time. I saw featherbedding of employees who had no work and were transferred to the survey crews or project teams of others so they could be hidden away and have a project to show on their time sheet. I experienced having to deal with employees that did not show up for work on Mondays due to their drunken weekends and I was not able to fire them. Instead I was told to transfer them to some other crew where they could become a more tolerant and less caring supervisor’s problem. This was and still is the civil service. This is why I left the public sector and returned to private practice where I stated my own business, a business I was able to grow, with the help of very good partners, to 850 people over the next 33 years.
 

When I came to California in 1962 I had always worked, as a land surveyor, in the private sector. When I arrived in the state I was informed that surveyors were members of the Operating Engineers Union and I had to join before I would be hired by any form engaged in construction. When I went to the Local 12 union hall and saw the waiting room crowded with men waiting to be called to a job I was appalled. Why weren’t these men out looking for a job I asked myself? Why should they? After all they were collecting their unemployment benefits. After a brief conversation with a union representative who informed me I would have to sign on as an apprentice and would be the last one called I left never to return. It took me a week to garner a position with the Division of Highways, a job in which I would excel in over the next 10 years.
 

I grew up in a union family in Cleveland, Ohio — a union town. All of relatives and friends, with the exception of my father, belonged to a union. They were either members of an industrial union like the steel workers or machinists (CIO), teamsters or building trade unions (AFL). I, like my Dad, never belonged to a union. He taught me that I should make it on my own merit and not depend on a union boss for my job. He had seen enough of unions and featherbedding while working in a defense plant during WWII. He had seen men sleeping in the restroom, reporting to work while being intoxicated and passing their work of to others while taking time of the job. And believe it or not my Dad was a life-long Democrat. 
 

My cousin John was a general foreman for the Ford engine plant in Cleveland, Ohio until his retirement in the late 1990s. While was working in this position I visited him in Cleveland and had a conversation regarding the decline of the American auto industry. John told me that you could trace the lack of quality and rising costs to the auto workers unions. He said that each year the unions demanded more money, bigger pensions, more health care and workers’ rights. He went to say that Ford, like the other U.S. auto makers rather than get tough with the unions and risk a strike would just give in to their demands and pass the costs on to the consumer. He also informed me that 40% of the engine blocks cast at the plant were rejected due to careless and haphazard workmanship — some of which he attributed to sabotage by disgruntled employees. John was right on target. It did not take long for the America car buyer to see he value in imports from Japan, Germany and Korea, as they due today. You see the ultimate judge of value — the consumer was voting the unions down with their wallets.
 

While I was driving to the store with John he stopped rather quickly at a red light and a .357 magnum revolver slide out from under the front seat. I was a bit taken and asked him why the gun? He told me that was for protection as he walked across the parking lot at the end of his night shift. When I inquired why he needed protection he said it for protection against a disgruntled union worker for whom he might have turned in a disciplinary action. This was the state of the unions in the late 1980s.
 

Over the years John’s predictions have come true. Our auto industry had to be bailed out and the unions were protected. In construction builders and contractors have gone to hiring independent contractors for their home construction, many of which are illegal immigrants. The teamsters have lost membership as more and more truckers have become independent contractors owning their own trucks and big rigs.
 

With the loss of our manufacturing base jobs that were once the sole monopoly of unions are gone. He firms these union jobs resided in have close shop and moved to foreign shores. We no longer make steel and the foreign auto makers building Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas and BMWs are located in right to work states and have no union workers.
 

So where can the union bosses and their Democrat clients get their unions dues from — the service industry and he public sector. The growth in public sector union membership has been growing a furious rate in the past 10 years. Right now we are looking at 66,000 TSA employees coming into the fold of either the American Federation of Government Employees or the National Treasury Union. This represents another $30 million dollars a year to dump into the election of Democrat politicians.
 

You wonder why the unions are busing in members from across the country to protest Gov. Walker’s cost cutting measures. This is a major battle for the unions. You might call it their Stalingrad. If they lose here it will be the beginning of the end. Other states will begin to follow Wisconsin’s lead as they did in 1959 when they began to give public sector employees collective bargaining rights. Right now the latest Rasmussen poll shows that that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided. How long will it take the media to honestly and accurately report on this issue?
 

While these number are a bit confusing and raw they show a trend in public opinion that has not been evident for the past 20 years. The public is finally awaking to Roosevelt’s caution in 1937. Public sector unions now threaten to overwhelm our economy with financially untenable compensation packages. We are broke. Legislators should put an end to these abuses; and while they are at it, craft major structural reforms with a complete downsizing of selected government agencies.

The Train To Nowhere

“Welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” — Albert Camus

If the nation is going to reduce its out-of-control spending, the first step is to stop spending money on things we do not need. Despite President Obama’s call in his State of the Union speech for linking 80 percent of the nation by high-speed rail, it is hard to imagine a more unnecessary program.

For example, people who travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco — along the route planned for one of the nation’s first high-speed-rail projects — already have choices. They can fly, drive, take the bus, or travel by train. True, some would prefer to tax their fellow citizens so that they can have another choice, high-speed rail. But indulging this desire would be as legitimate as funding government grocery stores for people who prefer not to shop at their local grocery chains.

Among intercity transport modes, only Amtrak is materially subsidized. User fees pay virtually all the costs of airlines and airports, which (together with connecting ground transportation) link any two points in the nation within a day. The intercity highway system goes everywhere, and nearly all of it was built with user fees paid by drivers, truckers, and bus companies.

High-speed rail is a budget buster. Japan, with the world’s leading system, illustrates the financial devastation that high-speed rail can produce. For 25 years, Japan borrowed to build a system serving the ideal rail corridor, nestled along a single coast with a population of more than 75 million people. Ridership was artificially increased by high gasoline prices and one of the highest highway tolls in the world. Yet this modest system, only twice as long as proposed California system, played a major role in driving up a gargantuan rail debt that was transferred to Japanese taxpayers. The rail debt added more than 10 percent to the national debt. This is akin to adding $1.4 trillion to the U.S. national debt.

Virtually everywhere high-speed rail has been constructed, financial liability has fallen to the taxpayers. In Taiwan and the United Kingdom, taxpayers assumed billions of dollars in private debts for much more modest high-speed-rail systems than Japan’s.

All of this could have been avoided. Through the years, high-speed-rail cost overruns have been well documented. Most recently, research by Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University, Nils Bruzelius of Stockholm University, and Werner Rothengatter of the University of Karlsruhe (a former president of the influential World Conference on Transportation Research) found that passenger-rail cost overruns above 40 percent were common and that overruns above 80 percent were not uncommon. Overruns can go even higher: On Korea’s high-speed-rail project, they were between 200 and 300 percent, the president of the country’s rail system said.

High-speed-rail cost escalation has reached these shores. Even before the first shovel has been turned, California’s high-speed-rail costs have risen at least 50 percent, inflation adjusted. The cost estimates for the first approved section of the Los Angeles–to–San Francisco line, a “train to nowhere” from Corcoran to Borden, indicate escalation beyond $45 billion.

In Florida, boosters tell taxpayers that their liability for the Tampa to Orlando high-speed-rail line would be only $280 million, and that, somehow, a private bidder will shower additional billions upon them to pay any cost overruns.

Boosters also claim that high-speed rail will provide substantial environmental benefits, reduce highway-traffic congestion, and ease air-traffic congestion. Yet, as Joseph Vranich and Wendell Cox showed in the Reason Foundation’s “Due Diligence” report on California’s high-speed-rail proposal, the cost per ton of greenhouse gas removed would be from $1,900 to $10,000. This is 40 to 250 times what the International Panel on Climate Change research indicates greenhouse-gas removal should cost ($50 per ton). Our estimate does not account for the revised (much lower) ridership projection. Even the rosy reports produced by boosters show that high-speed rail would remove only a small percentage of cars from the roads. The hope of reducing air congestion is just as elusive because travel origins and destinations are so dispersed in the United States and because the number of people forsaking air travel for high-speed rail will be small.

California seems to be ignoring the national trend against high speed rail and racing down the path towards this boondoggle. Gov. Jerry Brown is a fervent backer HSR. He has even gone so far as to request the federal dollars Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin have rejected. Brown has never liked automobiles so this is not an unexpected action on his part.

Hailed as a high-speed road to the future, a jobs program and a symbol of America's dedication to innovation, President Obama has proposed spending $8 billion on a bullet train — a down payment on a nationwide network that will cost $53 billion over the next six years. Currently the House of Representatives has taken this money out of the budget for this year and there appears to be a mood for them trashing the entire $53 billion. The Senate has yet to act on the budget and Obama has vowed to veto it of he does not get all he wants. The battle lines are forming and the outcome is unsure. Jerry Brown, like the good progressive he is, is waiting on the sidelines for his share of the federal pie.

But in the one state where the federal high-speed rail project is underway, critics say money is being misspent, ridership studies are inflated, the route is politically corrupted and the system will never be self-supporting. "They don't know where they're going to build it, they don't have a mile of right of way under possession, it is not shovel ready, it is not even engineer ready," said Richard Tolmach, with the California High-Speed Rail Authority. "It is still a work in progress where the line might go. Right now it is not somewhere the feds should be putting their money."

But the feds are putting money into the project. Already California has received about $3.8 billion, mostly in stimulus money. But as the high-speed rail project that is furthest along, it stands to bring home the lion's share of any additional federal money.

And that is where the controversy comes in. The first leg of the project is slated for the middle of Central Valley — not between major cities, or congested freeway corridors like San Francisco and San Jose or Orange County and Los Angeles. The Central Valley site is between Borden — a point on the map where no one lives — and Corcoran, a town where half the residents will never board a train because they're in prison.

"We heard things like it's the 'train to nowhere' and we tell people we're not nowhere, we're Mayberry," Corcoran City manager Ron Hoggard said. “The train will never stop in Corcoran, but many locals want the jobs. However, city officials fear the noise, environmentalists fear for the wildlife, and farmers don't want their land and irrigation lines bisected.”

"So if it comes through town and it's elevated, you know you have an elevated graffiti magnet at 85 decibels every six minutes. That's probably not a good thing for this small town feel that we want to have," Hoggard said.

"We have to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes, that's by state law. The only way to do that is through the Central Valley," said Jeff Barker, with the California Rail Authority.

The state hopes to leverage the public money into billions in private investment. But so far the ridership numbers put out by the state don't support profitability, thereby requiring a government guarantee. That is something supporters won't admit, since it would likely sink the project.

Unlike our vast interstate highway system HSR will not benefit the people in Montana, Nebraska or Kentucky. Why should their tax dollars to go California to build this Disney-like project? In fact what benefit will it bring to the people of Riverside or San Diego? The interstate highway system was financed by user fees (federal and state gasoline taxes, license fees and trucker fees. The people in Montana benefit by being able to drive to Los Angeles or New York over a continuous network of dual highways. Truckers can deliver goods across the county cheaper and faster, thus reducing the price for shipping. The same logic applies to airlines. The users pay for the planes, the security, the air traffic management system, and airport fees when they purchase a ticket. None of this applies to the California HSR. How many passengers will travel it each day from San Francisco to Los Angeles and what will the cost for a ticket be? California HSR was another one of the many initiatives placed on the California ballot that was deceiving to the voters. If the initiative had spelled out the true costs to the taxpayer I doubt if proposition 1A would have passed.

Critics say the bullet train is a boondoggle and black hole of taxpayer dollars for decades to come. Advocates say it is a vital link in America's transportation future, relieving congesting in the skies and on the freeways. They also say it will create thousands of jobs, helping justify the cost. But in California alone, with new estimates putting the cost at $65 billion is it a luxury the new Congress feels America cannot afford.

The price for Obama’s dream for HSR will cost the American tax payer $655 dollars each year for the next ten years. If you want to see what it will cost you each year click here for the Taxpayer’s Calculator?

Voters gave the new Republican House of Representatives a mandate to cut spending. Zeroing high-speed rail out of the federal budget may be the litmus test. If Congress fails to stop this costly and unnecessary program, it would call into question their commitment to spending reduction.

The Power of the Minority

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," — Franklin Roosevelt, in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees.

Somewhere, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is grinning past his cigarette holder at Wisconsin's governor. They are on the same page regarding government unions.

Except that Scott Walker — Republican cheapskate, his visage Hitlerized on signs waved by beet-faced union crowds besieging the Capitol —is kind of a liberal squish compared to FDR. He's OK with some collective bargaining.

Walker, you might have heard, wants some changes in how Wisconsin deals with unions. He wants state employees to pay 5.8% of their salaries toward their pensions (they pay almost nothing now) and he wants them to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums (their share would go up from $79 a month to about $200; the average private-sector worker pays about $330).

Unions are enraged. They've been calling such increases unspeakable since Walker was handily elected in November. Then, Feb. 10, Walker went further. He'd allow public-sector unions to negotiate only pay, not benefits, mainly because he wants HSA-style health plans and 401(k)-style retirements for state workers, and unions would fight that, tooth and ragged red claw.

So unions erupted. Teachers faked illness in such numbers as to close school districts for days. Mobs beat on the doors of legislative chambers. And in some heavenly Hyde Park, the great liberal god of the 1930s is saying he saw it all along.

Roosevelt's reign certainly was the bright dawn of modern unionism. The legal and administrative paths that led to 35% of the nation's workforce eventually unionizing by a mid-1950s peak were laid by Roosevelt.

But only for the private sector. Roosevelt openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions.

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."

Roosevelt wasn't alone. It was orthodoxy among Democrats through the '50s that unions didn't belong in government work. Things began changing when, in 1959, Wisconsin's then-Gov. Gaylord Nelson signed collective bargaining into law for state workers. Other states followed, and gradually, municipal workers and teachers were unionized, too.

Even as that happened, the future was visible. Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee's mayor in the 1950s and the last card-carrying Socialist to head a major U.S. city, supported labor. But in 1969, the progressive icon wrote that rise of unions in government work put a competing power in charge of public business next to elected officials. Government unions "can mean considerable loss of control over the budget, and hence over tax rates," he warned.

According to a 2010 report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union—was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers. The report highlights four specific trends.

• The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).
• Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 37.1 percent.
• Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent).

You can view the full report by clicking here

What we have is less than 7% of private workers belonging to a union, while 36% of public sector workers belonging to a union, with the teachers having the highest rate of union membership at 37% — and growing.

In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1 million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Private sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1 percent). In 2010, low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.6 percent) and in financial activities (2.0 percent)

If you watch the news coming from Wisconsin you would think that public sector union membership represented the majority of American taxpayers. Well. It doesn’t. The reason the crowds of protesters is so high is that the unions have bused in thousands of their members from surrounding states to protest Gov. Walkers planned cuts.

There is also another and more malevolent aspect to the issue in Wisconsin. Fox News reports; “President Barack Obama and his political machine are offering tactical support, eager to repair strained relations with some union leaders upset over his recent overtures to business.”

President Obama with his buddy Richard Trumka

“The potent combination has helped fan the huge protests in Wisconsin against a measure that would strip collective bargaining rights from state workers. The alliance also is sending a warning to other states that are considering the same tactic.”

"I think it's a clear message," said AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman. "If you take on middle-class people and try to solve the budget crises on their backs, there's a price to pay. Many thousands of people will be energized to fight back."

“For Obama, stepping into a confrontation with a governor has its risks. The president is in a struggle of his own to tame spending, and siding with unions may cast him as a partisan even as he talks about setting a new tone in Washington.”

Nearly every major union leader — both public and private sector — has united behind an ambitious $30 million plan to stop anti-labor measures in Wisconsin and 10 other states.

The group at the new "Labor Table" includes AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka working with leaders such as Teamsters president James Hoffa. Until recently, the two barely were on speaking terms.

"There's nothing like the possibility of extinction to focus people's attention," said former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., who spent more than a year trying without success to reunify the labor movement.

At the same time Congressional Republicans are accusing Obama of trying to muzzle governors who were making efforts to rein in government. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Obama was helping fuel "Greece-style" protests in the United States, a reference to the demonstrations that followed Greek efforts to cut government programs.

With unemployment at 9 percent, the public is not particularly sympathetic to public sector employees. "On the politics, we worry that this will be seen less as an attempt to help the middle class broadly and more as an attempt to help a union or an interest group," said Matt Bennett, a vice president at the centrist but Democratic leaning Third Way. "That does not have a deep wellspring of support among the middle class at the moment."

Fox News has an informal poll on their web site showing that 89% of those who voted support Gov. Walker. You can view the poll by clicking here.

What we have in Wisconsin is a small minority, getting more media coverage than they deserve, attempting to force tax payers to support their unjustified demands. They are children who have had everything they wanted for so long that when you attempt to take something away for the good of the family they throw a tantrum, and a tantrum is what it is.

They are spoiled brats that have had everything handed to them without having to work for it. They believe they have a right to 100% health care and guaranteed pensions. They claim it’s good for the children. That’s the old education claim that has forced the American tax payer to throw trillions of dollars down the rat hole of government education monopoly.

I am sick and tired of hearing about how wonderful teachers, firemen and policemen are. How about fishermen, loggers, farmers, and small business owners? They are not unionized and no one speaks for them. They go about their work every day providing us with goods and services and all the while the government workers are demanding more of their money. What about the teachers in the parochial schools that are not members of the NEA or AFT, but obtain 10% better results than their public sector counterparts?

I am tired of hearing how dangerous the occupations of police, firemen and corrections officers are. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics fishing and logging are the most dangerous jobs with police and firemen ranking 10th and 13th respectively.

If there was ever a time when this Republic needed the support of its non-governmental worker citizens it is now. If Gov. Walker loses this fight we will all lose. A very small minority of union workers have an unprecedented and undeserved amount of powers over the majority of Americans. Everything Roosevelt said about collective bargaining for the public sector is correct. We are paying the price for years of ambivalence towards these government unions and the influence they have through the power of forced collection of union dues from their members.

Walker, good Republican, is no FDR but he is offering Wisconsin a new deal. Wisconsin's been a seedbed of bad ideas since it hatched Progressivism, and for years it's stuck with unionized government even as the price swelled. Walker's radical shift is to try securing necessary government at a better price. The unions, whose model depends on making government labor as costly as taxpayers will bear, object.

May they be haunted by the ghost of the 32nd president, and his little dog, too!

What a Bench

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." — Thomas Sowell

Early this morning I watched Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-Wisconsin) news conference where he addressed the demonstrations and absent state senators in Wisconsin. Walker gave a strong, eloquent and precise statement defending his position on Senate Bill 13, a bill that, if passed, will remove collective bargaining rights from for civil service employees. He is also proposing that the teachers contribute to start paying 5.8% of their salaries toward their pensions and 12.6% toward their health care plans. I could not help but being impressed with Walker’s delivery and his clarity.

After the press conference I watched a panel show on Fox News and listened to Charles Krauthammer praise the governor for his stance and his ability to frame the issue so clearly. Krauthammer went on to say that while he could not comment of the potential Republican candidates for president in 2012, but that he Republicans had a very strong bench.

Krauthammer’s statement got me thinking about 2012 presidential race who the Republican front runners would be. I saw a weak field for the top spot n the ticket. The media repeatedly touts the usual suspects of Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich and Palin. Right now I see no real candidate that can capture the hearts and minds of the independent voters. However, I do believe the Republicans have an incredible bench.

It’s analogous to a baseball team that is not doing well, but their farm clubs have a wrath of talent ready to move up the majors and replace many of the mediocre, journeyman starters. It’s like the Los Angeles Dodgers of the 1980’s when they brought up that tremendous crop of rookies from Albuquerque; Lopes, Garvey, Cey, Sutton, Yeager, Ferguson and Russell. They were raw at the beginning, but what a team they made throughout the1980’s.

With this in mind let’s take a look at the current crop of Republican rookies. I’ll begin with the Governor’s farm club. According to the Republican Governors Association there are currently 29 Republican governors (58%) with 17 taking office in 2011 (57%). Many of these newly elected governors were out into office with strong support of the Tea Party — scouts for conservative candidates. Who are the best future prospects either for the second place on the 2012 ticket or the number one spot in 2016? Here is my scouting report.

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. He is 62 years old and the former Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush. He was elected to his second term as governor by an 18 point margin in 2008. Conservative, well known and understands government spending.

Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana. Jindal is 41 years old and is the 55th governor of Louisiana. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 3 years prior to his election of governor after the Katina fiasco. His margin was of victory was 54% in a four way race. Jindal has brought jobs to Louisiana and became national known when he took on President Obama during the BP oil spill. He is conservative, eloquent and has written a book. In 2008, Governor Jindal was ranked one of the nation's most popular governors with an approval rating of 77%.

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey. Christie is 49 years old. Christie became the first Republican to win a statewide election in New Jersey in 12 years. Christie, an attorney, previously served as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Christie popped into national prominence when he took on the New Jersey teachers unions. He is a fiscal conservative and minces no words when taking on the government unions

Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico. The 51 year old Hispanic governor Martinez is the first female governor of New Mexico,[3] as well as the first Latina governor in the United States. She was formerly the district attorney for the 3rd Judicial District of New. Martinez was elected with 54% of the vote in a three way race. On January 31, 2011 Governor Martinez signed an executive order rescinding sanctuary status for illegal immigrants who commit crimes in New Mexico while protecting victims and witnesses of criminal acts. She is Hispanic, tough on illegal immigration and a fiscal conservative.

John Kasich, Governor of Ohio. At 59 years old Kasich is the 69th governor of the Buckeye State. He previously served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Ohio's 12th congressional district from 1983 to 2001. He was a commentator on Fox News Channel, hosting Heartland with John Kasich, from 2001 to 2007. He is a fiscal and social conservative who is national known. Ohio is he next state to challenge public sector unions and his performance will test him in the eyes of independents and conservatives.

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998, he assumed office as governor in December 2000 when Governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was reelected to three full terms in 2002, 2006 and 2010, an unprecedented feat in Texas political history. With a term length to date of 10 years, Perry is the longest serving current U.S. governor. Perry is well known, a conservative, tough on immigration and staunchly against ObamaCare.

Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia. Perry is 57 years old and the 71st governor of Virginia. A former lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, McDonnell served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1993 until he was elected Attorney General in 2005. After campaigning as a pragmatist, McDonnell was elected as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, defeating Democratic state Senator Creigh Deeds by a 17-point margin in the 2009 general election. McDonnell is a conservative with strong Tea Party backing and the first governor to challenge ObamaCare.

Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin. At 44 years old Walker is one of the younger governors in the nation. He won the office in the general election on November 2, 2010, defeating Democratic candidate Tom Barrett 52% to 46% percent (a traditional “blue” state). Previously, Walker was the County Executive of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin from 2002 to 2010, and a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly from 1994 to 2002. Walker is currently engaged in a battle with the Wisconsin public service unions, a fight that has sky rocketed him to national prominence. Walker is a fiscal conservative. He is eloquent and presents himself well. If he prevails in his fight with the public service unions he will be a formidable candidate in he future.

Now let’s take a look at the United States Congress and see how the bench looks.

Marco Rubio is the junior United States Senator from Florida and member of the Republican Party. At the age of 39, he is the second youngest current U.S. Senator, being only one week older than Mike Lee of Utah. Rubio was the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives during the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions. He was first elected to the Florida House on January 25, 2000, from the 111th district. Rubio is a Cuban American who is good looking and well spoken. He won a three way race on November 2, 2010 with 48.9% of the vote to Crist's 29.7% and Democrat Kendrick Meek's 20.1%. He is no doubt on of the brighter stars in the Republican constellation.

Michele Bachmann, U.S. Congress (Minnesota 6th district). Bachmann is 55 years old and in her second term in the Congress. She is a fire brand with strong support from the Tea Party. She is the third woman, and first Republican woman, to represent the state in Congress. During the 2010 political campaign Bachmann achieved national prominence with her Tea Party support and numerous appearances on Fox New and other media outlets. She is a fiscal and social constitutional conservative, pro-business and hated by the left.

Paul Ryan, U.S. Congress (Wisconsin 1st district). Ryan is 41 years old and in his 6th term in Congress. Ryan graduated from Miami University and worked as a marketing consultant and an economic analyst. Ryan has been ranked among the party's most influential voices on economic policy and is currently spearheading the fight against Obama’s big spending. As the Chairman of the House Budget Committee he has considerable power over federal spending. He is supported by the Tea Party and many independents. In 2008 Ryan introduced H.R. 6110, titled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008".This proposed legislation outlined a plan to deal with entitlement issues. Its stated objectives were to ensure universal access to health insurance; strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; lift the debt from future generations; and promote economic growth and job creation in America. He is a rapidly rising star.

Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky. At 48 years old he is the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul and a practicing ophthalmologist who understands the issues of medical care. As a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Paul has been vocal in advocating for term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He is a staunch supporter of he Second Amendment.

Eric Cantor is the U.S. Representative for Virginia's 7th congressional district, serving since 2001. At 48 years of age he has been in the House for 5 terms. He is now the Majority Leader of the House and served as the Minority Leader when the House was controlled by the Democrats. During his first term, Cantor was Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. He has also served on the House Financial Services Committee and on the House International Relations Committee and the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Cantor is a fierce opponent of ObamaCare and a strong fiscal conservative. He gained national prominence with his numerous appearances on Fax News and other media outlets during the health care debates.

Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference. Pence is 52 years old and has been serving in Congress since 2011. He represents Indiana’s 6th Congressional District and is a strong conservative. He is not as well known on a national level as Bachmann, Ryan and Cantor, but he has been a strong opponent of ObamaCare and a supporter of the Second Amendment.

This is my current rundown on potential talent for a winning conservative team. I am sure there will be more to surface in the future. As Charles Krauthammer says, The Republicans have a strong bench. I prefer the term triple A farm club system. There are known talents ready to move up to big leagues, but there are also many newly recited players coming into the double A clubs. These are the ones we have to watch. The only danger we face is that the old, tired veterans and managers will not allow the new talent to take their jobs. If we want a winning team we need to move the old vets into the Hall of Fame and let the new talent win the pennant for us. I don’t think the other league has the talent the conservative team has.