Only a Liberal…

Ask your favorite pro-government, pro-union Liberal/Statist:

What is the purpose of a public sector union?

Ostensibly, a union makes sure an employer treats its employees fairly.

Ostensibly, the federal government, to a pro-government Liberal, treats everyone properly and certainly more fairly than a private organization.

So why would there be any need for a public sector union? Liberals can’t have it both ways. If the government is benevolent and fair to workers, then there is no need for public sector unions. If public sector unions are necessary, then the federal government must not be benevolent and fair.

In 2009, 37% of public employees were union members. Only 7% of private sector employees were union members (Department of Labor). Why the discrepancy?

• Politicians love unions, because they can be easily controlled at the voting booth.
• Government officials have zero concern for running a profitable or efficient operation, so they don’t care if union employees cost more than non-union employees.

Here’s as illustrative an example as any. Total hourly labor costs for a GM employee are $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Total hourly labor costs for Toyota: $48.

The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers. The UAW has not been able to organize workers at a Toyota plant in this country; it does represent workers at one joint GM-Toyota plant in Fremont, Calif. - manufacturing.net

How’s that Fremont plant doing? It closed last month.

Private sector unions are a brilliant snapshot of how the government works. It is the natural progression of government to get more and more expensive. Politicians without term limits have one overriding incentive: get re-elected. This causes a politician to promise voters more goodies than his predecessor. As a result, government must become more and more wasteful, more and more expensive. Union leaders threaten companies with strikes in exchange for more and more goodies. Ridiculous pensions and health care, among other things which in the auto industry, causes employees to cost 43% more at one car company over another.

43%? Can you imagine a company surviving long with such a disadvantage compared to its competitors? Of course not, unless the federal government unconstitutionally bails that company out with private tax dollars.

“Yesterday Gallup released the results of a poll that found that while only 36 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism, 53 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of self-described liberals view it favorably.” - American Spectator

Socialism is the only entity I have ever seen that no matter how many times it fails, people still yearn for it. People who have prospered in a capitalist system antithetical to socialism yearn for “more” in their minds. I suppose it is the paradox of a free market; we are SO rich that we have the luxury of spending time trying to destroy the very system that allows us to do so.

Socialism is a vicious, heartless disease that devalues productivity. I can think of nothing more unjust that destroying the value of productivity willingly in the misguided pursuit of equal outcome.

Two stories have inspired me to write a post concerning the difference between a right and a privilege. The first is a column by Bernie Sanders, the “independent” democratic socialist senator from Vermont, titled “Health Care is a right, not a privilege.” The second is a court ruling in France, where their Constitutional Council declared internet access a “basic right.” I will ruin the ending by telling you I strongly disagree with both.

A passage from Sanders’s column:

“First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege - which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?

I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Before you can dispute his conclusion, you have to dispute his premise…

“the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection”

The fact that every other “major” country treats healthcare as a privilege is irrelevant to the debate. It is clear as day that the United States is unique, and should only follow the lead of other countries if those countries are more successful at that particular policy.

The notion that education is a “basic need” is also a fallacy. That’s a whole other debate. On top of that, comparing healthcare to education, police, and fire protection is also ridiculous. We have police and fire protection for general welfare. Police enforce the rule of law, an important reason for the success of America. If your house catches fire, that fire can spread extremely quickly to other houses. The only analagous healthcare situation would be an epidemic. We have the Center for Disease Control to handle that.  Other than epidemics, healthcare is infinitely more similar to a grocery store than a fire department. Each individual has extremely unique wants and needs in regard to healthcare. Healthcare is not one-size-fits-all situations.

Also, Bernie’s assertion that Obama’s election shows that the American people have decided healthcare is a right is also fallacious. There is no indication that Americans voted for Obama because of his quest for universal healthcare. If that was the case, Hillary would have likely won the primary.

“The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Here, Bernie has jumped straight to the conclusion he supports without any supporting evidence. Even if you think healthcare is a right, the notion that it should be run by the government is ludicrous.

“Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world.”

And Bernie’s solution is to have the government run it? His argument is the government won’t be costly, wasteful, complicated, or bureaucratic. Anyone with a brain understands how ludicrous this assertion is. My slow, inefficient car doesn’t make me happy, so I’m going to buy a slower, more inefficient car to solve the problem. Its silly.

Is healthcare a right? If it is, is food a right? Is water a right? Should every American own a car? Does every American have the right to employment? Does every American have the right to an internet connection?

The American Constitution has defined rights very strictly for a reason: to protect the citizens from a tyrranical government. We have laws to protect one citizen from another. Rights as defined by the constitution are primarily concerned with protecting citizens from the government. Giving the government power over the recurring, unique needs of each American individual is removing freedom from every citizen to choose their own healthcare. That’s aside from the fact that government is more inefficient and more wasteful than any private organization has ever been.

The more important “right” that Americans have is the right to freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose which healthcare provider they want, which type of coverage and payment plan they want, and ALSO the right to NOT get healthcare. The socialist argument that allowing people to not have healthcare costs everyone more money may be true, but putting it under the control of the government would AMPLIFY that problem. Car insurance is not provided by the government, yet everyone with a car is required to have it. I could be persuaded that all Americans should be forced to have health insurance to prevent high costs, but the notion that universal healthcare would solve all the problems with private healthcare is idiotic and willfully ignorant.

The only time a government should reduce the individual’s freedom is when that freedom infringes on the freedom of others. My healthcare through my wife’s employment does not prevent anyone else from getting their own healthcare. Because of that fact, it is none of the government’s business where or how I get my healthcare, same as its none of their business how often I go golfing.

The fire department prevents one individual’s fire from affecting other citizens. The police department enforces laws that prevent one citizen from infringing on the freedom of another. Disease epidemics are analogous to fires, but other than that, healthcare has more in common with a grocery store than a fire department.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Oh, that’s just ridiculous! How could anyone want to do something like that?

From Reuters: Barack Obama announced that in order to help pay the huge tax bill he’s charging on Uncle Sam’s credit card, he’s gonna reduce the tax deduction that rich people get to claim when making charitable contributions. They used to be able to deduct 35% of their charitable donations: now they will only be able to deduct 28%. He actually accidentally supports the argument for a fair tax, but he supports both sides of an argument all the time. As you might expect, charity groups are worried this will decrease giving.

Obama’s response… “If it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.”

Mr. President, your assumptions are naive and irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what someone’s reason is for giving charity. The point of the tax credit is to create incentive to make charitable contributions. If you increase the cost of a charitable donation by one cent, you will decrease the amount of donations. Its just economics. Perhaps it won’t decrease very much, but to claim it won’t decrease is preposterous.

“It’s not going to cripple them. They’ll still be well-to-do,” he said.

When Obama says “them,” he is referring to rich people. You are certainly correct, Mr. President. You won’t and can’t cripple rich people by taxing them. Taxing rich people more doesn’t hurt rich people. It hurts anyone that rich people give their money to, like small businesses and CHARITIES. Barack Obama does not care if increasing taxes on the rich will decrease charitable contributions. Attacking the rich is more important to him.
It is obvious that Obama is relentless in his pursuit to attack the rich/productive members of society regardless of the casualties. Arguments by Charlie Gibson and others pointing out that increasing the capital gains tax will actually decrease federal tax revenue doesn’t penetrate the socialist ideology of Barack Obama. Allow me to remind you of their conversation:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased.  The government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.  So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair…

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not.  [emphasis added]

Here are the key points to pay attention to.

1. Gibson cites empirical evidence citing the downside to increasing capital gains tax. Obama responds by talking about how much money 50 people made. This shows that he thinks his job is to tax the rich, not optimize federal tax revenue.
2. Obama then points out that making money off the stock market allows rich people to pay a lower tax rate than secretaries. What this observation fails to point out is that doesn’t mean the rich person is paying a lower amount of tax: just a lower rate.
3. Obama says its not fair that 50 people are paying lower tax rates than secretaries. Not lower taxes: lower tax rates. What he’s saying is its unfair that some people are making more money off the stock market than others. Are the secretaries prevented from making money off the stock market? No. So the hedge fund managers must have some expertise that allows them to make money off the market that the secretaries do not have. That means that the only thing Obama could be saying is not fair is that one person is making more money than someone else. He believes equality means equal outcome, rather than equal opportunity.
4. Gibson reiterates the historical truths of capital gains tax changes. Our President, the most powerful man in the world, ostensibly the best candidate for that office in all of America, responds with the old “maybe, maybe not” argument.

This guy is dangerously ignorant. I take that back… I can’t be sure he’s ignorant. I can believe he’s aware of everything I’m arguing for. I don’t think he cares. He has formed conclusions based on ideology, and ideology trumps evidence in his mind. He may not be ignorant, but he certainly is dangerous. I’m not the first to say this, but I predict he will either be impeached for his incompetence, or lose in a Reagan-esque landslide in 2012. You can fool all of the people some of the time…

I think the wording of a poll question is critical to really understanding the “I want the President to fail” debate. Do you want the President to fail in general, or do you want policies you disagree with to fail? Most partisan invertebrates answer this question with blind emotion, and I reserve a special place in hell for these morons. President Clinton passed welfare reform. Although I strongly dislike him in general, I did not want him to fail at doing that simply because he’s a poopy head.
Regardless, this hypocritical outrage at Rush Limbaugh for wanting Obama to fail is ridiculous. In August of 2006, a Patterico poll found that 51% of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. The majority of these 51% simply hate George W. Bush, and failure increased the chances of a Democrat in 2008. They are entitled to do so, but don’t shower us with all this outrage that you liberals didn’t have in 2006. Its amazing to see the idiotic, ignorant comments on sites like Huffington Post:

Al Eisele: The Republican Party, America’s second oldest political party and a force in American politics and government since the time of Abraham Lincoln, died on March 1. It was 155 years old.

James Moore: The more people that hear Limbaugh articulate his disdain for the success of America the better will be the country’s chances of rejecting his hateful ideology and getting back on the path to prosperity.

Jill Brooke: Who were the undisputed champs of CPAC? Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh — two unmarried people without any children.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Limbaugh said on numerous occasions that America wanted to fail, yet Moore claims Limbaugh has “disdain for the success of America.” Flat-out, shameless liar. Mr. Eisele WISHES from the depths of his soul that the Republican party died as a result of Rush’s speech, but wishful thinking will get him nowhere. Jill Brooke flat out changed the subject, showing that her opinion is as worthless as an Obama campaign promise. Check out that link and see more comments in a substance vacuum from scholars like Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore.
Rush has said on numerous occasions that he is specifically referring to the liberal/socialist policies that Obama is putting into place and planning for the future. That is what he wants to fail: not America. Getting mad at Limbaugh without addressing the substance of his argument is intellectually cowardly. “Us vs. Them” bullshit is getting worse everyday; I am so sick of it.

If you want either President to fail at everything, you are an idiot. Please stop voting and reproducing; you are too dumb to live. If you want them to fail at doing specific things that you ideologically disagree with, you are normal.  Get the facts before you form so-called “strong” opinions.

Washington Times has an article on it. I tend to dislike Michael Savage’s pattern of calling a spade a vicious, evil, pedophile spade (I exaggerate a tad), but when he compared President Bush to Hitler when talking about all these bailouts, I find it very hard to disagree. Liberal kooks were right for the wrong reasons, and premature in their Bush/Hitler comparison. The argument that “I don’t want to bail them out, but extreme times call for extreme measures” could have easily come out of Hitler’s mouth. The notion that government politicians know how to help deal with extreme measures other than war should be dismissed at the door.

No, Bush didn’t kill any Jews, but is the word Hitler always off limits except when speaking of genocide? I think not. The government has shown time and time again it is incapable of solving problems. Everyone thinks that if a market crashes, the market is broken and something ostensibly outside the market has to fix it. This is kindergarten insanity.

Numerous television pundits say we have to bailout the auto companies. Why? If they failed, subsidizing failure solves nothing. Let them fail, and someone more efficient and profitable will fill that market niche. The government arbitrarily deciding who gets money and who doesn’t is breathtaking, and any American who understands the suicide of socialism needs to get angry. These bailouts are legalized robbery. Grand theft bank account.