What Wisconsin Government Employees Need to Accept

The Wisconsin government employees who are complaining about proposed legislation affecting collective bargaining need to recognize that in a democracy, government employees exist to serve the taxpayers, not the other way around. Unions representing government employees need to accept the fact that a union cannot have equal status with the officials who exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people.

President Franklin Roosevelt generally favored unions, but as he explained the situation in a letter to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, the situation of unions representing government employees differed from the situation in the private sector..

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

I worked for county government for 23 years as a janitor. During part of that time I belonged to the SEIU which represented me until the elected county commissioners decided to stop negotiating with unions. I didn't agree with their decision, but I accepted it because I recognize that in a democracy we "hired hands" cannot have equal status with those who are chosen by the population at large which pays us.

Government employees generally have better job security than private sector employees.

Pay may be lower, but the employer isn't going to move to another state or country. Some government agencies can be shut down, but most must continue to function. Government may have to lay off some employees from time to time, but someone must be available to teach in schools, fight fires, catch criminals or clear snow off the highways.

Consumers of private goods and services have more options that taxpayers. Consumers may stop buying new cars or eating in restaurants. Consumers can switch to less expensive products.

But if taxpayers decide to stop paying taxes, government can take their money or property. Taxpayers don't always have the option of moving to a jurisdiction with lower taxes. They can only band together and vote for officials who will reduce taxes to more affordable levels.

If military personnel attempted to pressure the U.S. government into providing higher pay or other benefits we would recognize the action as a potential threat to elective government. If the military formed an alliance with one party to pressure the other in to giving it what it wanted voters would understandably react against that party.

The fact that the demonstrators in Wisconsin are civilian government employees rather than military employees doesn't change the fact that they are attempting to pressure elected officials into taking orders from them instead of from the people.

Government employees don't have a "right" to collective bargaining because that would allow the minority of government employees to have as much of a voice in government spending decisions as the population as a whole which would violate the "one man one vote" doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

The proper response to the proposed legislation would be to accept it for now and attempt to elect legislators in 2012 who will reverse the legislation. The confrontational approach union members are currently using might be useful for bringing down Middle Eastern governments, but is more likely to strengthen anti-union sentiment among Wisconsin Republicans.

Media Sheep Love to Attack Snowball (Palin)

After the animals took over the farm in George Orwell's "Animal Farm", the pig named "Napoleon" decided to use the sheep to help destroy his rival "Snowball" . For example, he would have them bleat during the speeches of Snowball who was a better public speaker.and had more success in winning public favor.

The Democrats' Media Sheep have been treating former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin the same way Napoleon's sheep treated Snowball.

They go out of their way to blame her for anything that goes wrong like the recent shooting in Tucson. In blaming Palin they conveniently ignored the fact that pollster Mark Penn in an interview by Chris Matthews after the November election suggested that President Barack Obama needed something like the Oklahoma City bombing to reconnect with voters. I doubt that Obama's supporters had anything to do with the Tucson shooting, but Obama did use it to improve his public standing..

The Media Sheep didn't say anything when University of Tennessee law Professor Glenn Reynolds in a "Wall Street Journal" article accused them of a "blood libel" because they were trying to blame Palin for the shooting. The Media Sheep didn't start bleating about the term until Palin repeated Reynolds' accusation.

They will try to twist whatever she says to make her look bad. For example, the Media Sheep criticized Palin for doing creating the new word "refudiate" as if only certain people are allowed to create new words. Journalists can come up with ridiculous words like "Monicagate" as a term for Bill Clinton's sex scandal, but the Media Sheep objected to Palin suggesting a word that sounds like it should be an acceptable word.

One of the strengths of the English language is that it allows creation of new words such as by combining existing words or adding a suffix or prefix. New meanings can be given to existing words. The Huffington Post article criticizing "refudiate" used words for the sounds birds make, "twitter" and "tweet", with their new definitions for cryptic phone text communications. "Refudiate " makes more sense as a new word than the Facebook term "unfriend".

The Huffington Post also supported the tempest in a teapot regarding Palin's use of "crib notes" in the form of a few key words written on her hand, apparently to remind her of some concepts she wanted to comment on.

These same Media Sheep see no problem with President Barack Obama using a teleprompter to insure he says what those who bought the White House for him want him to say. Palin used only a couple of words to remind her of topics she wanted to mention.. Obama needs to read complete speeches.

It's more important that politicians communicate what they want to communicate than that they memorize everything they want to say.

Since 1968 political reporters have had a tendency to think that a losing vice presidential candidate is somehow the logical choice for the next presidential nomination. They have this attitude in spite of the fact that in the last 200 years only one losing vice presidential candidate ever won a presidential election. And, Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't run until 12 years after he lost and he won in large part because he ran against an incumbent in the middle of the Depression.

I suspect many of the Media Sheep are jealous of Palin's popularity. She's the new Queen of Perky. She's energetic and personable.

Palin is a real person. She's more like former President Harry Truman than the artificial type politicians who think they must act in certain ways and say what their advisers tell them to say. As comedian Flip Wilson's alter ego Geraldine Jones might say with Sarah Palin "what you see is what you get".

People support to her because she sincerely believes what they believe. Unlike most politicians, she doesn't just take positions because some public opinion poll says that is what people want to hear. She speaks for her supporters rather than to them.

I don't know whether she has presidential ambitions or not. If she does she would be better off delaying a run for the White House until she can get more administrative experience such as by serving as a cabinet secretary in a Republican administration. Her experience as a governor of Alaska provided better training for the presidency than serving in the glorified debating society known as the U.S. Senate, but the federal government has more employees than Alaska has people.

Best Option to Repeal Obamacare

If House Republicans are serious about wanting to repeal Obamacare, they should pass a Resolution stating that some, or all, portions of the Obamacare law are unconstitutional. A House Resolution doesn't require Senate approval and cannot be vetoed as would be the case with a bill eliminating Obamacare.

The Resolution should include a statement reminding the courts that the only justification Chief John Marshall could cite for ruling on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress in Marbury v. Madison was the oath the justices took to support the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath and thus have the same authority to express opinions of the Constitution.

The voters provide the ultimate check on government. If one Congress acts contrary to what voters think is correct, they have the option of electing new members to correct the improper action. The House of Representatives is the closest to the people because each district is approximately equal in population and all are subject to replacement every two years.

Those challenging Obamacare in court could use such a Resolution to support their claims that the law is unconstitutional.

House members should consult with those challenging Obamacare for suggestions about what the Resolution should include. The following indicate some of the substantial constitutional problems with Obamacare.

Regulating individual behavior using the Interstate Commerce Clause sounds like a violation of the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. Congress could regulate the behavior of humans as elements of commerce when those humans were commodities to be bought and sold as slaves. Free citizens have the freedom to engage in interstate commerce or not engage in interstate commerce.

Requiring people to pay for health care by purchasing insurance violates their right to privacy in making health care decisions. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases has held that government cannot interfere in a person's right to make personal health care decisions. Requiring people to purchase insurance can force them to turn over health care decisions to an insurance company. Forcing them to turn money over to an insurance company instead of using it to pay for the type of health care they desire can deprive them of their right to choose health care options the insurance company doesn't support, such as plastic surgery, a sex change operation or treatment insurance companies considers "experimental".

Abortion supporters don't understand that Obamacare could eliminate abortion funding if health insurance companies considered late term or other abortions too costly or "risky". If the Interstate Commerce Clause can override the right to privacy on health insurance, then it can override the right to privacy on other health care decisions. This possibility may not be important for Obamacare opponents, but it is important to many Supreme Court justices.

Requiring people to purchase private health insurance violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the First Amendment. Some religions such as the Amish religion and Islam consider purchasing private insurance wrong. The Christian Science religion questions the use of medical doctors. Requiring members of these religions to purchase private health insurance deprives them of their right to practice their religion.

Exempting them from the requirement, creates a special benefit that amounts to a subsidy of their beliefs because they are allowed to keep more of their money for their own use, including donating it to their organization, than those who belong to other religious groups or don't belong to any religious group. Allowing members of some religions to spend money that members of other religions don't have to spend has the same impact as providing a direct government subsidy of the privileged religious groups. The First Amendment refers to government subsidy of a religion(s) as an "establishment of religion".

I have heard that the act creating Obamacare contains a provision that in effect states that if the Supreme Court finds any part of the act unconstitutional than the entire act would be invalid. Such a provision in and of itself would render the act unconstitutional because the provision would alter the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison invalidated an Act of Congress for a less significant attempt to alter the Court's power.

Such a provision would drastically alter the Court's Article 3 powers both expanding and restricting them. The provision would in effect grant the Court a stronger veto power than the President has because Congress could not override the Court's "veto". On the other hand the provision would dictate to the Court by removing the option of invalidating or modifying only those provisions in legislation that in the opinion of a majority of the Court violate some portion of the Constitution. The Constitution established the judicial branch to limit the ability of the government to control the lives of its citizens by limiting the circumstances under which the government could impose punishment. The judicial branch is not supposed to function as a super legislature.

The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance from private companies at rates set by those companies involves the transfer of the government's taxing authority to private companies which deprives voters of the ability to elect those who determine their taxes.

The Resolution should remind the Court that forcing people to purchase private health insurance is unnecessary to provide people with access to health care. Government can raise revenue to pay for health care with its taxation powers and then use that money to directly pay health care costs as it already does with Medicare and Medicaid.

The comparison of Obamacare to requirements for purchasing auto liability insurance is invalid. The auto liability insurance requirement is a requirement that those who engage in the dangerous activity of driving a motor vehicle prove they can compensate anyone who suffers a loss because of their mistakes while operating a motor vehicle. Many states allow motorists to fulfill this liability requirement by posting a bond rather than purchasing insurance.

Media Responsible for Arizona Shooting?

It didn't take long for political activists and media members to start blaming each other for the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Actually, the media in general are largely responsible for such shootings. By the media in general I mean everyone from the New York Times and MSNBC to Fox News.

Both Republican and Democratic commentators have a tendency to use excessive rhetoric, but the Arizona shooter doesn't seem to have been concerned with regular political issues or be involved with either political party. The media impact on his behavior involves the way the media operate in general.

Unfortunately. the easiest way to get the "15 minutes of fame" Andy Warhol talked about is to go out and shoot up some place. Some killers of public figures get more than just 15 minutes of fame.

We still remember John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald long after the presidential assassinations that made them famous. James Earl Ray who killed Dr. Martin Luther King and Sirhan Sirhan who killed Robert F. Kennedy are still remembered by many. Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme became famous even though her shot missed President Jerry Ford. Revolutionary War traitor Benedict Arnold's name became another word for traitor.

Someone who shoots a public figure is guaranteed similar short term publicity as soon as the police release his or her name. Such shooters today have an advantage over those of an earlier age because they can leave information about themselves on the web which the media will report as they did as soon as they found it on Saturday. The ability to publicize themselves on the web may encourage would be shooters to act.

The Arizona shooter doesn't appear to have acted because of strong political opposition to the victim as was the case with John Wilkes Booth and Sirhan Sirhan. About the only significant cause the shooter supports is the efforts of atheists and others who want to eliminate "In God We Trust" from currency. .

The shooter's behavior is more consistent with that of John Hinckley, Jr who shot President Ronald Reagan to gain the attention of Jodie Foster. However, some information released about the Arizona shooter indicates he may have been planning a variation of "suicide by cop" in which he would go out in "a blaze of glory". He seems to have hoped that the shooting of Giffords would cause someone to shoot him or perhaps he planned to kill himself as many of those who engage in multiple shootings do..

There has also been a suggestion that he had been stalking Giffords which could indicate a sexual aspect to the shooting. He may have decided to attack Giffords because she was a woman or possibly, considering that his life was going nowhere, because she was a prominent woman. If so the case could be comparable to the killing of "My Sister Sam" costar Rebecca Lucile Schaeffer .

In this context he may not have been affected by political debates on tv news, but he might have been affected by the way some in the media treat politically active women particularly unsuccessful Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell and former Governor Sarah Palin. The trashing of them in the media might have encouraged him to develop negative feelings against a local woman politician who was more accessible.

You might notice that I have omitted something from this post. I'll explain that omission with a statement Paul Harvey often made about someone who had done something bad to get in the media: "He would like for me to mention his name."

Obama and the Third Bush Administration

They told me in 2008 that if I voted for Sen. John McCain we would get the third Bush administration. They were right. I voted for McCain and now we have the third Bush administration under Barack Obama.

Obama continued bailouts, stimulus payments, high deficits and presidential vacations. He convinced Congress to continue all the Bush tax cuts.

Obama is carrying on Bush's efforts to weaken the Social Security system by reducing Social Security taxes in spite of the fact that many have had to delay retirement because the economic collapse damaged their private pension programs. If Obama were a real Democrat, he would want to strengthen Social Security.

The health care program Obama conned the Democratic Congress into approving apparently originated in the administration of the first President Bush. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney enacted a similar program in Massachusetts.

Some Republicans refer to other Republicans as "RINOs" for Republicans In Name Only. It appears that President Barack Obama could be a "DINO" or a Democrat In Name Only.

Maybe it's time for Democrats to ask for that birth certificate.

Homosexuals in Combat - Reality Check

Statements by military leaders that there would be no problems with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones would be more convincing if the military wasn't having a problem with its male personnel sexually assaulting its female personnel.

Female veterans on a recent PBS documentary said that women were afraid to go anywhere on their bases alone in Afghanistan and Iraq because of concerns about being sexually assaulted.

The main problem with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones won't be them attacking others, but others killing them because of concerns about being attacked. Some homosexuals claim that they look at other men the way men look at women. Many could interpret this claim as indicating homosexuals might attack other men the way some men attack women. .

A woman who is concerned about a sexual assault will take defensive measures such as finding someone to accompany her when she goes some place. Men are sexual predators and when predators are concerned about being attacked they may respond with a preemptive attack, particularly when they are in a combat zone where they have to be prepared to kill or be killed.

In Vietnam, the term "fragging" was coined to refer to one American killing another particularly by using a grenade. Sometimes the target was an officer who was considered overly aggressive in combat and thus a "threat" to the life of whoever decided to attack him.

I recall reading one news article about an enlisted man in a rear area who killed his first sergeant who he claimed was putting too much pressure on him.

In Vietnam I knew some infantrymen who smoked marijuana in the rear area who said they would kill someone for smoking it in the field. There was a case just before I left Vietnam of a man who was accused of killing other members of his unit for using drugs in the field.

Rape is often associated with warfare. Soldiers released from the moral controls that discourage killing may also lose the controls that discourage sexual assault.

There is the possibility that homosexuals in a combat situation might attempt rape. A more likely situation would be a false perception that a homosexual might attack. Such a perception could lead to action against the homosexual who seemed to pose a threat.

Women know that some men sometimes misinterpret an act of friendship as an indication of sexual interest. An act of friendship by a known homosexual could also be misinterpreted, with potentially fatal consequences.

Incidentally, Federal Judge Virginia A. Phillips violated the Constitution when she ruled against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Constitution explicity assigns the powers to raise, regulate and direct the military to the legislative and executive branches. Congress and the President are free to exclude anyone from the military based on physical traits, personal characteristics or for engaging in behaviors that the Congress or President believe might interfere with military operations. The President even has the authority to deny freedom of expression to those who wish to serve in the military as President Barack Obama did when he fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal for making negative comments about Obama. The courts can only intervene if punishment for military infractions involves something like imprisonment or death.

Don't Cut Wall Street Bums' Taxes

The Wall Street bums who demanded bonuses for wrecking their companies and the U.S. economy, don't deserve a tax cut. Congress should even consider raising taxes on them and other members of upper income groups to replace the money that would otherwise be collected from those earning far less.

Republicans who argue that cutting taxes for the upper income group would allow small business owners to create new jobs, ignore the fact that most of those who make over $250,000 a year don't own small businesses. Executives of Wall Street and other large corporations aren't going to reinvest their money to expand their business. If they invest in stocks, it will be to bid up the prices of existing stocks.

Neither overpaid athletes nor entertainers.are likely to use their money to create jobs.

Congress can encourage small business owners to invest in new jobs without giving everyone else a tax cut. All Congress has to do is authorize small business owners to deduct investment in buildings and equipment immediately instead of requiring them to spread out the deduction over several years through depreciation.

Congress has already "rewarded" the Wall Street bums by giving them bonuses for wrecking their companies and the economy. It shouldn't reward them again by cutting their taxes.