Posts tagged ‘Political commentary’

March 7, 2011

What Does a Legislator Cost These Days?

by Steve Dana

Even after a couple of weeks, the stalemate in Wisconsin persists.  Government is at a stand still.  Patience is wearing thin.  So what is next?

I am surprised that Republicans and the independents in Wisconsin have been as patient as they have.  I’m not sure I would have been so restrained.

The issues haven’t changed a bit so what is changing?

The unions are working overtime to tie the governor’s actions to private sector business owners who may have contributed to his campaign.  When you don’t have anything substantial to add to the debate, you attack your opponent.  Where else have we seen that tactic?

But since they brought it up, what’s the connection between public employee unions and private sector contributors?  Or maybe more important yet, what are the implications of public employee unions contributing to elected officials.

When the unions contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Democrats don’t they have expectations that something will be delivered?  Who advocates for the taxpayers when the unions elect the guys that negotiate their contracts?

I heard Governor Walker talk about contributors to his campaign and he acknowledged receiving contributions from business owners, but he received most of his money from citizens who may or may not have been big business in any way.  Take a look at the Public Disclosure documents if you really want to know.  Rules for individuals and businesses are different for unions and PAC’s

Check the PDC’s for almost any Democrat in the land and you will see the majority of the money comes from either unions or political action committees because rules allow unions and PAC’s to give in greater amounts.  I wonder who negotiated that advantage?

What is so surprising to the Democrats in the Mid-West is the stunning upset they suffered in the 2010 elections and they are still reeling from it.  It has to be a bitter pill after all their years in the drivers’ seat to see everything they worked for come crashing down because of their failure to properly read the sentiment of the people.

In Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, the legislatures and governors have changed because voters in those states realized that union sponsored candidates were serving the unions and not the citizens of their states.  And that is really the issue here. 

Taxpayers in these states and others are finding that they have been used by entrenched Democrats to serve unions and their special interests and they’re finally getting wise.  The problems being exposed by the bad economy are shining a really bright light on the Democrats and they are uncomfortable.

While I have been critical of Democrats I’m not suggesting that Republicans are always straight shooters because they have been just as greedy and/or corrupt as Democrats at times.

A lesson for voters everywhere might be that we have an obligation to be vigilant, to watch our elected officials and make sure that when they make promises in their campaign they deliver or are held accountable in the next election. Elected officials are called public servants for a reason.  Let’s make sure ours serve the public and not the special interests.

We can only hope that voters in our state will begin to see the parallels between these mid-West states and our own and dump the liberal progressive tax and spenders from our legislature.

So what camp are you in?

February 28, 2011

Is This Really About Labor Unions?

by Steve Dana

So what’s the deal with these union guys?  Or what’s the deal with these wise guys in the Wisconsin Senate who have stuck it to their Republican colleagues in the past because they had the power to do who now have resorted to fleeing the state to prevent the Senate from taking action on the budget bill?

In all fairness, I don’t hold the union guys responsible for the trouble either Wisconsin faces or the rest of the country.  That responsibility falls on the elected representatives in both the executive branch (who negotiated the contracts) and the legislative branches for approving the contracts.

And that holds true for every level of government from the smallest to the largest.

I know from experience that the union reps sit down to the bargaining table with a list of “demands” for the upcoming contract.  The government side responds with a pitch counter-offering something less.  They dance back and forth a little and come to agreement.  The contract goes back to the union membership for approval and to the legislative branch for theirs and the deal is done.

So how tough can that be?

On the union side, things don’t get tough unless management refuses to budge on an important issue.  They have to decide how hard they want to fight for each issue.  Get the easy ones settled first then squeeze later for the harder ones.  Sometimes the parties are not able to come together and the union members exercise their rights under collective bargaining rules and stop work.  They are calculating that by stopping or slowing their work management will cave and agree to their demands.  Maybe, maybe not!

The rules of the game for the union are pretty much the same in both the private sector and the public sector with a few exceptions.

The difference between union negotiations with a public agency and a private company is the person negotiating on the private sector side is always a staunch advocate for the company shareholders and the company’s bottom line whereas on the public side, the person negotiating for the taxpayers may well be a union member themselves and not an advocate for the taxpayers at all.  You can imagine how some of those contracts might end up.

The negotiations in public sector contracts often are not negotiations at all.  The union puts their demands on the table and the government guy agrees then goes back to his legislative body and cries about how hard the negotiations were and how he got the best deal he could and we need to approve it.

As an elected official in my city, I was never allowed to sit in on union negotiations with my city manager.  Our council was only given limited details of the contract until it was voted on by the union.  We never had fiscal impact analyses prepared in advance so we could see how our long term liabilities were altered by the changing labor contract.

We were never actually allowed to see any of the details of the contracts until after we had approved them.

I understand that the union members are feeling Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is attacking them because this change will affect them personally.  And I feel for them in that regard.

But I also know what it feels like to be an elected official with a budget to balance and lots of folks with their hand out.  It’s a no win situation.

For years I have been talking about the ticking time bomb with our government pension system.  The issue came up in about 1991 when I served on the Joint Fire Board as one of the representatives for the city.  A fire department in California had been run by Commissioners who were retired fire fighters.  Whenever the contracts came up for renegotiation, they got great settlements with the expectation that when the cash flow got tight, they would just go to the voters to lift the levy lid.  If you present fire department money requests in such a way that failing to approve might result in a family member not making it in an emergency, voters approve.

So when pension commitments started coming due, they had to come out of current revenues since the fire district didn’t put any of that money away as the commitments accumulated.  When voters didn’t go along with raising taxes again, a crisis arose.

So was that a spending crisis or a revenue crisis?

Now take that scenario and apply it to nearly every government agency you can think of and imagine how large the crisis really is.

Sadly, the elected officials who negotiated these sweetheart contracts are long gone and the union leaders only did what they always do in advocating for their members.

Unfortunately the rank and file union members will be the ones that have to bear the brunt of the correction that must take place in order to get government back on a sound fiscal footing.

Elected officials in every district, council and legislature facing budget emergencies now have to figure out how to work around a problem that’s been accumulating for decades. 

I don’t envy them a bit.

February 27, 2011

Battle for America!

by Steve Dana

Protesters in Madison, Wisconsin and everywhere across the land including Washington State have been characterized by the press as being either Union Activists or Tea Party Activists.  The folks in the press have decided that there are two sides in the discussion; one being the labor unions, the other being the Tea Party.  Maybe it’s a mistake to label the sides that way.  Are there really only those two choices?

I think it’s clear that since the focal point of this whole discussion is Collective Bargaining impacts to public budgets, the unions would, by necessity, be there protesting since their very existence might be at stake.

The curious part for me is the assumption that anyone who takes a position supporting the legislature and the governor of Wisconsin is a Tea Party Activist rather than a Republican or a concerned citizen from Wisconsin.  I can’t say that the Republican Party has done a lot to attract fiscally conservative Americans so not giving credit to Republicans and Independents for electing the current government in Wisconsin is not surprising. 

There is no doubt that the Republican Party has been the beneficiary of Tea Party efforts, but that is not the case because these folks have suddenly seen the error of their ways.  The Tea Party is not an organized political party, but they are previously silent concerned citizens that have banded together to fight for government that is faithful to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they were written rather than the way they are mistakenly interpreted today.  It just happens that the Republican Party better represents the values of Middle America better than the Democrats.  The Republicans should not misread this support as an endorsement of ultra Conservative causes.

For decades our country has been the victim of a tug of war between left wing interests and right wing interests.  Average Americans have swung back and forth between the two without much involvement because they enjoyed steady improvement to their quality of life which offered them a lot of opportunities to enjoy prosperity.  It was because of the steady improvement that they felt comfortable leaving government to someone else. 

Then suddenly, steady improvement stalled and began to deteriorate which gave rise to the TEA Party movement.

Make no mistake; there have been some in the political arena who have been raising the alarm for many years so the problem didn’t just materialize when Barack Obama was elected President.  It could be that it took the election of the most liberal and radical president in our history to demonstrate how close our country is to being rendered a second class power.

Standing on the sidelines is no longer an option for average Americans.  If you care about your country, get involved.

The struggle taking place in Wisconsin is the beginning of a much larger battle that must be fought in every government agency from city councils to the federal government.  The struggle is not between Republicans and Democrats; it is between taxpayers and government labor unions. 

For many years labor unions have funded campaigns of candidates that when elected negotiated their contracts.  As a result, those elected officials approved union contracts for pay, benefits and pensions that would obligate taxpayers to pay without the taxpayers having an advocate at the table.

The Tea Party is Middle America and they are fed up with special interest government on both sides of the aisle.  They are fed up with political wrangling and partisan BS. 

Middle America has formed a partnership with the Republican Party for now to take a shot at restoring our country to the greatness we all know it deserves.  Failure of this effort will have dire consequences.

February 25, 2011

Congratulations on Selecting the Best Workers!

by Steve Dana

Congratulations to the Boeing Company on landing the 767 Tanker contract.  It was a grueling marathon process.  You have to wonder why it had to be that tough.

I am a big fan of American workers and American companies building American Defense Department contracts.  I am disappointed that the competition in our own country has been absorbed into just one company, but when we send our warriors into battle, I want to know their equipment was made by Americans.

I know that in this day and age it is hard to know what allegiance a company has to America, but if their business has been historically American I tend to think of them as American.  The workers on the other hand, have never been in doubt.  American Boeing workers are the crème de la crème of the aerospace industry.  How could we consider allowing someone else to build a tanker that will be in service for decades?

So let’s hoist a few to celebrate and get to work.

Whether American Companies with American workers should be the only eligible bidders on Defense Contracts should be a topic for discussion at every level of government with the expectation that if everyone understands the security and economic implications for our country they would all get on board.

I have a hard time understanding how our government could consider allowing a major contract like this one to go to a foreign company even if they hire American workers.

If you are a Veteran, we give you extra points on the civil service exam for your service.  If you are a Veteran, we have home loan programs that make buying a home very easy because of your service to our country.

In a competitive environment, I am in favor of giving a few extra points to American Companies and American Workers if the quality of the work does not suffer.  I don’t care if that creates an uneven playing field.  I am in favor of American made.