America against the Unions

Opinion at large

The Wisconsin standoff has lasted two weeks. The sissy Wisconsin State democrats exiled to the People's republic of Illinois to hide in shame. We can call Wisconsin ground zero, however, this issue has spread like wild fire throughout the country. What is the real issue? Is it collective bargaining (right of entitlements)? Or is it simply the state governments just trying to break the unions? First, I think you would admit that government union employee entitlement programs are seriously costing the states and municipalities a huge portion of their overall revenue. My, what a wicked web we weave. The union member pays union dues to the union, the union contributes huge money to the democrat politician running for office, gets the democrat elected, then bargains these cushy entitlement deals for the unions. If this was private sector, I'm sure laws would be broken. Notice how the democrats who should be concerned with the pathetic state of our nation's economy, comments on the poor unions and the brutal assault on the working middle class workers and their families. What about the millions of Americans that work their butts off to put 5 to 10% of their incomes in a 401K and pay hundreds of dollars towards their healthcare expenses? Should those people also pay 95% to 100% of the government union members pensions and healthcare debt service through higher taxes? NO, they should not. The teachers unions are the most temperamental, because they teach our kids. I am so happy my Son is grown and I don't have to deal with him being indoctrinated into the progressives' army. Wisconsin, in example, eighth graders cannot read proficiently. Wisconsin hardly can fire a teacher, seniority rules, even for bad teachers and so on. This has to stop. This can bankrupt the states and ultimately, the country. I written in previous posts, I believe we need to get rid of the Department of Education. Education needs to be ran from the state level. Union heads like Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO, portrays what Governor Walker State plans is an attack on all unions. To the contrary, this couldn't be farther from the truth. Wisconsin's plan would strengthen private unions.  


Socialist and Unions-two peas in a pod:



Listen to his words:



In 41 states, public union members make more than their private sector counterparts. I guess it is all about "workers unite"? Some of the media is drawing comparisons between unions and socialist/communist groups. I can say first hand, at the Tea party rallies, you would never see a socialist or communist party attendance in any form, unless they were protesting us, the Tea Partiers. Not to mention, the liberal union members are getting violent as the days pass by. Mike Tobin, Fox reporter, was assaulted by a union protester, they really don't want any other opinion except their own. So much for first amendment rights and freedom of the press. 


Union thugs and the police does nothing:





Will the American people and the union liberals end up in riots? It sure seems that is a possibility. If the Wisconsin issue continues and the union thugs get more inpatient, and you have the American taxpayer tired of being taxed for the wrong reasons. I promise you, we will not back down. It could turn out to be a deja vu' of the 1968 riots. I have never been a fan of unions and my Father was a union democrat all his life. Yes, it was very interesting in my family's house at dinner. In closing, I hope Wisconsin stays the course and wins this battle to save their state. Maybe then, the other fragile states will follow suit. 


Pathetic funnies:

Dramatizing Governor Walker’s Point February 28, 2011 1:10 P.M. By Christian Schneider If you were watching the Oscars in Wisconsin last night, chances are you were treated to anew anti-Scott Walker ad by a group calling itself “America’s Families First.” The ad, entitled “Prank Call,” begins, “What kind of governor would refuse to meet with nurses, teachers, and firefighters, but takes a 20-minute call from an oil billionaire?” Based on their website, it’s hard to figure out exactly who America’s Families First is, but any betting person would conclude that it’s union money attempting to dissuade voters from supporting Walker’s attempts to roll back collective bargaining in Wisconsin. (The AFL-CIO also began running anti-Walker ads a few days ago.) If so, then it follows a long line of innocuously named groups in Wisconsin suspected of being funded by organized labor (Independent Citizens for Democracy, Building Wisconsin’s Future, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, etc.). But this ad makes one of Scott Walker’s strongest points for him. The public-sector unions have successfully shifted the conversation in Wisconsin to collective bargaining — they claim it’s not about the money, having conceded Walker’s financial demands. Yet they are using the sacrosanct concept of “collective bargaining” as a carapace to protect what they truly value: union dues. Public-sector unions use these compulsory dues to run ads like this one. WEAC, the state’s largest teachers’ union, reports spending $3.6 million on such ads in the past two election cycles. Walker’s plan allows union members to discontinue paying these dues. When Gov. Mitch Daniels gave them the option in 2005, 95 percent of Indiana’s public-sector workers chose to halt paying their dues. If such a thing were to happen in Wisconsin, it would harm the attempts of public-sector unions to elect sympathetic lawmakers (who then do things like fleeing to other states to protect the unions’ revenue stream). The next time Walker speaks to public-sector-union members, he should pull out a copy of the “Prank Call” ad. He should ask the workers whether they’d rather pay for political ads or keep that money in their pockets. Somehow, I don’t think union leadership would like the answer. — Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. 3 things about Islam: CHURCHILL ON ISLAM    (check Wikipedia - The River War)   I am sending the attached short speech from Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, and was accorded a State funeral.   HERE IS THE SPEECH:   "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."   Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London ) Is this why Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill?  Quote du jour: "Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master." Dwight D. Eisenhower WRITINGS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS FEDERALIST PAPERS || Federalist No. 77 || The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered From the New York Packet. Friday, April 4, 1788. Author: Alexander Hamilton To the People of the State of New York: IT HAS been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from the co-operation of the Senate, in the business of appointments, that it would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of that body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint. A change of the Chief Magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the officers of the government as might be expected, if he were the sole disposer of offices. Where a man in any station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that a discountenance of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some degree of discredit upon himself. Those who can best estimate the value of a steady administration, will be most disposed to prize a provision which connects the official existence of public men with the approbation or disapprobation of that body which, from the greater permanency of its own composition, will in all probability be less subject to inconstancy than any other member of the government. To this union of the Senate with the President, in the article of appointments, it has in some cases been suggested that it would serve to give the President an undue influence over the Senate, and in others that it would have an opposite tendency, a strong proof that neither suggestion is true. To state the first in its proper form, is to refute it. It amounts to this: the President would have an improper INFLUENCE OVER the Senate, because the Senate would have the power of RESTRAINING him. This is an absurdity in terms. It cannot admit of a doubt that the entire power of appointment would enable him much more effectually to establish a dangerous empire over that body, than a mere power of nomination subject to their control. Let us take a view of the converse of the proposition: "the Senate would influence the Executive." As I have had occasion to remark in several other instances, the indistinctness of the objection forbids a precise answer. In what manner is this influence to be exerted? In relation to what objects? The power of influencing a person, in the sense in which it is here used, must imply a power of conferring a benefit upon him. How could the Senate confer a benefit upon the President by the manner of employing their right of negative upon his nominations? If it be said they might sometimes gratify him by an acquiescence in a favorite choice, when public motives might dictate a different conduct, I answer, that the instances in which the President could be personally interested in the result, would be too few to admit of his being materially affected by the compliances of the Senate. The POWER which can ORIGINATE the disposition of honors and emoluments, is more likely to attract than to be attracted by the POWER which can merely obstruct their course. If by influencing the President be meant RESTRAINING him, this is precisely what must have been intended. And it has been shown that the restraint would be salutary, at the same time that it would not be such as to destroy a single advantage to be looked for from the uncontrolled agency of that Magistrate. The right of nomination would produce all the good of that of appointment, and would in a great measure avoid its evils. Upon a comparison of the plan for the appointment of the officers of the proposed government with that which is established by the constitution of this State, a decided preference must be given to the former. In that plan the power of nomination is unequivocally vested in the Executive. And as there would be a necessity for submitting each nomination to the judgment of an entire branch of the legislature, the circumstances attending an appointment, from the mode of conducting it, would naturally become matters of notoriety; and the public would be at no loss to determine what part had been performed by the different actors. The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the Senate; aggravated by the consideration of their having counteracted the good intentions of the Executive. If an ill appointment should be made, the Executive for nominating, and the Senate for approving, would participate, though in different degrees, in the opprobrium and disgrace. The reverse of all this characterizes the manner of appointment in this State. The council of appointment consists of from three to five persons, of whom the governor is always one. This small body, shut up in a private apartment, impenetrable to the public eye, proceed to the execution of the trust committed to them. It is known that the governor claims the right of nomination, upon the strength of some ambiguous expressions in the constitution; but it is not known to what extent, or in what manner he exercises it; nor upon what occasions he is contradicted or opposed. The censure of a bad appointment, on account of the uncertainty of its author, and for want of a determinate object, has neither poignancy nor duration. And while an unbounded field for cabal and intrigue lies open, all idea of responsibility is lost. The most that the public can know, is that the governor claims the right of nomination; that TWO out of the inconsiderable number of FOUR men can too often be managed without much difficulty; that if some of the members of a particular council should happen to be of an uncomplying character, it is frequently not impossible to get rid of their opposition by regulating the times of meeting in such a manner as to render their attendance inconvenient; and that from whatever cause it may proceed, a great number of very improper appointments are from time to time made. Whether a governor of this State avails himself of the ascendant he must necessarily have, in this delicate and important part of the administration, to prefer to offices men who are best qualified for them, or whether he prostitutes that advantage to the advancement of persons whose chief merit is their implicit devotion to his will, and to the support of a despicable and dangerous system of personal influence, are questions which, unfortunately for the community, can only be the subjects of speculation and conjecture. Every mere council of appointment, however constituted, will be a conclave, in which cabal and intrigue will have their full scope. Their number, without an unwarrantable increase of expense, cannot be large enough to preclude a facility of combination. And as each member will have his friends and connections to provide for, the desire of mutual gratification will beget a scandalous bartering of votes and bargaining for places. The private attachments of one man might easily be satisfied; but to satisfy the private attachments of a dozen, or of twenty men, would occasion a monopoly of all the principal employments of the government in a few families, and would lead more directly to an aristocracy or an oligarchy than any measure that could be contrived. If, to avoid an accumulation of offices, there was to be a frequent change in the persons who were to compose the council, this would involve the mischiefs of a mutable administration in their full extent. Such a council would also be more liable to executive influence than the Senate, because they would be fewer in number, and would act less immediately under the public inspection. Such a council, in fine, as a substitute for the plan of the convention, would be productive of an increase of expense, a multiplication of the evils which spring from favoritism and intrigue in the distribution of public honors, a decrease of stability in the administration of the government, and a diminution of the security against an undue influence of the Executive. And yet such a council has been warmly contended for as an essential amendment in the proposed Constitution. I could not with propriety conclude my observations on the subject of appointments without taking notice of a scheme for which there have appeared some, though but few advocates; I mean that of uniting the House of Representatives in the power of making them. I shall, however, do little more than mention it, as I cannot imagine that it is likely to gain the countenance of any considerable part of the community. A body so fluctuating and at the same time so numerous, can never be deemed proper for the exercise of that power. Its unfitness will appear manifest to all, when it is recollected that in half a century it may consist of three or four hundred persons. All the advantages of the stability, both of the Executive and of the Senate, would be defeated by this union, and infinite delays and embarrassments would be occasioned. The example of most of the States in their local constitutions encourages us to reprobate the idea. The only remaining powers of the Executive are comprehended in giving information to Congress of the state of the Union; in recommending to their consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient; in convening them, or either branch, upon extraordinary occasions; in adjourning them when they cannot themselves agree upon the time of adjournment; in receiving ambassadors and other public ministers; in faithfully executing the laws; and in commissioning all the officers of the United States. Except some cavils about the power of convening EITHER house of the legislature, and that of receiving ambassadors, no objection has been made to this class of authorities; nor could they possibly admit of any. It required, indeed, an insatiable avidity for censure to invent exceptions to the parts which have been excepted to. In regard to the power of convening either house of the legislature, I shall barely remark, that in respect to the Senate at least, we can readily discover a good reason for it. AS this body has a concurrent power with the Executive in the article of treaties, it might often be necessary to call it together with a view to this object, when it would be unnecessary and improper to convene the House of Representatives. As to the reception of ambassadors, what I have said in a former paper will furnish a sufficient answer. We have now completed a survey of the structure and powers of the executive department, which, I have endeavored to show, combines, as far as republican principles will admit, all the requisites to energy. The remaining inquiry is: Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility? The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people? PUBLIUS. References: www.hotair.com www.theblaze.com www.dailycaller.com www.nro.com www.americanthinker.com www.thehill.com www.michellemalkin.com www.drudgereport.com www.politico.com Library of Congress/Federalist Papers Founding Fathers Quotes Christian Scheider www.youtube.com White Roses

From Cairo to Madison

Opinion at large


Run Dems Run! The media is blatantly complicit in this latest union protest in Milwaukee. Duh! you say. Fox News is the only news platform that showed the despicably, violent signs the union members displayed at the rallies. Wisconsin's governor Scott Walker realizes the state of Wisconsin is out of money. The unions don't care. The (regular) people of Wisconsin support Governor Walker and how he is standing up against the unions. Walker and the republican senate are up against more than just the unions. Some of the distinguished attendees are communists and socialists party members, Organizing for America (Obama's group), a plethora of unions, the DNC and Obama himself. Realizing that this is his voting base and cash cow.Have the cowardly Wisconsin democrats broken any Wisconsin laws by fleeing the state to avoid performing their elected duties? What does the rest of the world think about the childlike actions by the democrat runaways? Pathetic at best. The U.S. tries to tell the world what to do and we can't even govern ourselves. I have had the privilege to attend a few Tea Party rallies (912) in Washington, DC. They were always peaceful, respectful, friendly, very patriotic and we cleaned up after ourselves. However, to the lame stream media, we were a bunch of homegrown terrorists/racists ready to overthrow the government. The difference between the right and the left is the media. Have you seen the utter hatred, name calling or violent language from the union thugs and commies on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC or Al Jehezera? Of course not. In the bigger picture, I think we will see other states to making changes their pensions and healthcare. It is collective bargaining. The same cuts to their budgets and changing the ridiculous entitlement programs which have caused the deficits. Collective bargaining is the culprit.  


 "In organized labor/industrial relations, collective bargaining involves workers organizing together (usually in unions) to meet, discuss, and negotiate upon the work conditions with their employers." 


Collective bargaining in fact, has facilitated the trade unions to manipulate the state, local and municipal governments in surrendering lucrative entitlement programs the governments can not afford. Hence, ballooning deficits, layoffs and reductions to constituents instead of the union members. One example I saw from an union member's compensation was $1100 in union dues and $0 contributed to his pension. Why should the taxpayers of any state pay 100 % of a government workers pension or healthcare? They most likely do not receive the same benefits. Governors Christie in NJ, Cuomo in NY, Kasick in Ohio and others are standing up to the unions and trying to become fiscally responsible. The past Governors have avoided dealing with this issue and have kicked the can down the road for years. This is the day of reckoning. With the new batch of conservatives and Tea Party candidates elected this past November, they are making a concerted effort to change the union government employees entitlements. The federal government is going to have to follow suit. Otherwise, I see a government shutdown. Would anyone notice? The democrat Senate will probably change the House's bill and then it will have to go back to the House for approval. That will be the problem. 

Union entitlements - Change, we can believe in

Wisconsin democrats' theme song:












































Doctors writing fake doctor's notes in Wisconsin:



Daft statement of the day:
"I stand in solidarity."
Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman and communist from California


Madness in Madison:
By: Larry Kudlow

The Democratic/government-union days of rage in Madison, Wisconsin, are a disgrace. Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan calls it Cairo coming to Madison. But the protesters in Egypt were pro-democracy. The government-union protesters in Madison are anti-democracy; they are trying to prevent a vote in the legislature. In fact, Democratic legislators themselves are fleeing the state so as not to vote on Gov. Scott Walker's budget cuts.

That's not democracy.

The teachers' union is going on strike in Milwaukee and elsewhere. They ought to be fired. Think Ronald Reagan PATCO in 1981. Think Calvin Coolidge police strike in 1919.

[

The teachers' union on strike? Wisconsin parents should go on strike against the teachers' union. A friend e-mailed me to say that the graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent. The graduation rate for African-Americans in Milwaukee public schools is 34 percent. Shouldn't somebody be protesting that?

Governor Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit, and he wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That's an outrage.

Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are bankrupting America -- which by some estimates is suffering from $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is also pushing a bill to limit the collective-bargaining rights of teachers for wages and wage-related benefits. Similar proposals are being discussed in Idaho and Tennessee. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich wants to restrict union rights across-the-board for all state and local government workers. More generally, both Democratic and Republican governors across the country are taking on the extravagant pay of government unions.

Why? Because taxpayers won't stand for it anymore.

In an interesting twist on this story, even private unions are revolting against government unions. Private unions pay taxes, too. And they don't have near the total compensation of the public unions. It's no wonder they're fed up.

So, having lost badly in the last election, the government-union Democrats in Wisconsin have taken to the streets. This is a European-style revolt, like those seen in Greece, France, and elsewhere. So it becomes greater than just a fiscal issue. It is becoming a law-and-order issue.

President Obama, who keeps telling us he's a budget cutter, has taken the side of the public unions. John Boehner correctly rapped Obama's knuckles for this. If the state of Wisconsin voters elected a Chris Christie-type governor with a Republican legislature, then it is a local states' rights issue.

But does President Obama even know that the scope of collective bargaining for federal employees is sharply limited? According to the Manhattan Institute, federal workers are forbidden to collectively bargain for wages or benefits. Instead, pay increases are determined annually through legislation.

Meanwhile, Gov. Scott Walker said it would be "wise" for President Obama to keep his attentions on Washington, not Wisconsin. "We're focused on balancing our budget," he said in a television interview. "It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to be focused on balancing their budget, which they're a long ways from doing."

Amen.

Obama should stay out. And Governor Walker should stand tall and stick to his principles. A nationwide taxpayer revolt against public unions can save the country.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report and co-host of The Call. He is also a former Reagan economic advisor and a syndicated columnist. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.

Pathetic Funnies:

Facing Down the Unions 

Tackling the public-employee unions may no longer be a political kamikaze mission.

By: Katrina Trinko

Over the past year, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has become a folk hero by striking back at greedy union demands, lambasting union leaders, and standing up for taxpayers. But this year, Christie is facing some competition, particularly from new governors Scott Walker (R., Wisc.) and John Kasich (R., Ohio).

Walker, a former county executive and state assembly member, has an ambitious list of reforms he would like to see enacted. To start with, he announced last Friday that he wants to eliminate most collective-bargaining rights for the majority of public employees, exempting only police, firefighters, and state troopers.

He also wants public employees to begin contributing 5.8 percent to their pension plans. (Currently, most of them contribute nothing to their plans.) On health care, he would like them to increase their contributions to 12.6 percent, up from 4 to 6 percent. Taken together, the two measures would result in what amounts to 8 percent pay cuts for state workers. The changes would also save the state — which is facing a budget shortfall of $137 million this fiscal year — $30 million over the next few months. More important, they would save $300 million over the following two fiscal years, when Wisconsin is facing a $3.6 billion deficit.

“We look at wage and benefit costs and we believe we’ve got to have as much flexibility as possible,” Walker said in an interview withNational Review Online. “It’s not a matter of picking on public employees, who are doing a good job; it’s just a matter of saying this all has got to be put in balance. And when you compare that to what others are facing outside of government,” he adds, “it certainly is fair.”

“This isn’t going to be a bloodless move,” predicts Christian Schneider, a fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.  He points out that the state has “a long history of public-employee-union activism.” While public employees can’t strike in Wisconsin, Schneider suspects they will find other ways — whether it’s teachers’ ceasing after-school activities, or correctional-facility employees’ refusing to work overtime — to “take their case to the public” and make any attempt at reform as politically toxic as possible.

There has already been significant backlash. Over 10,000 union supporters protested at the state capitol Tuesday, and the Wisconsin branch of the AFL-CIO is running radio and TV ads blasting the cuts.

And although both the state senate and the assembly have Republican majorities, passing this reform package could prove difficult. Republican senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald told the Associated Press earlier this month that changing the law governing collective bargaining would be a “walk through hell.” Right now, it looks as if the legislature is determined to press on with the reform and deal with the political consequences later. A vote could be held as early as today.

Whatever the political fallout from the collective-bargaining reforms, there may at least be wide public support for Walker’s pension-contribution push, a measure that he touted during his campaign. It proved wildly popular with voters: 76 percent of Wisconsin residents thought public employees “should contribute to their own pensions,” according to a poll commissioned by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute last summer.

Walker has also already won one important battle. In a letter in November, he asked outgoing Democratic governor Jim Doyle to refrain from finalizing contracts with state union employees. The governor nonetheless continued to negotiate the contracts, and when he finalized them, the assembly pushed ahead, even pulling one Democratic assemblyman out of jail (where he was serving a 60-day sentence for drunk driving) for a day so that he could cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the contracts. But in a surprise move, Democratic senate majority leader Russ Decker voted against the contracts. Outraged Democrats stripped Decker of his leadership position that same day, but it didn’t matter: The vote was a tie, and the contracts were not official.

Walker is hoping that a civil approach toward union members will help defuse tensions. Unlike Christie, whose confrontational remarks have won him a devoted YouTube following, Walker sees politeness as a crucial part of his strategy: “I’ve bent over backwards,” he says, “to make it clear that the proposed reforms in no way reflect on my opinion of our state employees, who I think overwhelmingly are good, hardworking, decent employees.”

Over in Ohio, Kasich is also looking at a series of aggressive steps. The former congressman and Fox News host is considering barring public-school teachers from striking, rescinding an executive order issued by his predecessor that unionized home health-care workers and child-care employees, and banning binding arbitration.

“I don’t know if you all know what binding arbitration is,” Kasich said in a speech late last year. “When there’s a labor dispute, they bring somebody in from Kokomo, Indiana. He comes into Ohio. He imposes a settlement on our cities. He goes back to Kokomo — and we pay the bill.”

Certainly Ohio faces a problem with overpaid government workers. According to a July report by the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, an Ohio think tank, the median salary for state-government employees ($36,858) is 24.6 percent higher than the median salary ($29,586) for employees in the private sector. It should come as no surprise, then, that half of Ohio voters “think government leaders should first reduce government worker compensation to eliminate the $8 billion state budget deficit,” according to a July poll commissioned by the Buckeye Institute.

But the institute’s Matt Mayer also thinks that Kasich needs to put abolishing collective bargaining on the table. He points out that only about 14 percent of all contracts over the last eleven years have involved strikes or binding arbitration. “Even if you did eliminate those provisions,” he says, “they’ve had such little impact on the cost curve of government contracts. The vast majority — 86 percent — are due to the existence of collective bargaining.”

Republican state senator Shannon Jones introduced legislation last week that would end collective bargaining for state employees. “The governor is certainly supportive of the principles in Senate Bill 5,” says Connie Wehrkamp, a spokeswoman for Kasich. “In general, he’s supportive of limiting the scope of collective bargaining, and bringing back some balance between the taxpayers and the public employees.”

Jones’s bill has predictably angered the unions, with hundreds of union supporters protesting at the Ohio Statehouse Tuesday. Kasich, too, has already come under fire from the unions. “They’ve attacked the governor kind of non-stop since he walked in,” says Mayer. “We know that they’re going to mobilize the teachers, the cops, the firefighters, all the workers in each district of the house and senate to put even greater pressure on them on these issues.”

Both Walker and Kasich have plenty of work to do — and legislative battles to win — before they can claim the Christie mantle. But if they are able to stand firm, and not buckle under pressure from the unions, there will be three governors next year disproving the conventional wisdom that tackling the unions is a political kamikaze mission.

— Katrina Trinko is an NRO staff reporter.

Quote du jour:

A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 76

The Appointing Power of the Executive
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, April 1, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE President is "to NOMINATE, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up ALL VACANCIES which may happen DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE at the end of their next session."

It has been observed in a former paper, that "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration." If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode of appointing the officers of the United States contained in the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union; and it will not need proof, that on this point must essentially depend the character of its administration.

It will be agreed on all hands, that the power of appointment, in ordinary cases, ought to be modified in one of three ways. It ought either to be vested in a single man, or in a SELECT assembly of a moderate number; or in a single man, with the concurrence of such an assembly. The exercise of it by the people at large will be readily admitted to be impracticable; as waiving every other consideration, it would leave them little time to do anything else. When, therefore, mention is made in the subsequent reasonings of an assembly or body of men, what is said must be understood to relate to a select body or assembly, of the description already given. The people collectively, from their number and from their dispersed situation, cannot be regulated in their movements by that systematic spirit of cabal and intrigue, which will be urged as the chief objections to reposing the power in question in a body of men.

Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partiality's and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrage's of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that." This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

The truth of the principles here advanced seems to have been felt by the most intelligent of those who have found fault with the provision made, in this respect, by the convention. They contend that the President ought solely to have been authorized to make the appointments under the federal government. But it is easy to show, that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of NOMINATION, which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.

But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of universal venality in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory. It has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most corrupt governments. The venality of the British House of Commons has been long a topic of accusation against that body, in the country to which they belong as well as in this; and it cannot be doubted that the charge is, to a considerable extent, well founded. But it is as little to be doubted, that there is always a large proportion of the body, which consists of independent and public-spirited men, who have an influential weight in the councils of the nation. Hence it is (the present reign not excepted) that the sense of that body is often seen to control the inclinations of the monarch, both with regard to men and to measures. Though it might therefore be allowable to suppose that the Executive might occasionally influence some individuals in the Senate, yet the supposition, that he could in general purchase the integrity of the whole body, would be forced and improbable. A man disposed to view human nature as it is, without either flattering its virtues or exaggerating its vices, will see sufficient ground of confidence in the probity of the Senate, to rest satisfied, not only that it will be impracticable to the Executive to corrupt or seduce a majority of its members, but that the necessity of its co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate. Nor is the integrity of the Senate the only reliance. The Constitution has provided some important guards against the danger of executive influence upon the legislative body: it declares that "No senator or representative shall during the time FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED, be appointed to any civil office under the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office."

PUBLIUS.

References:

www.hotair.com

www.thedailycaller.com

www.theblaze.com

www.nro.com

www.weeklystandard.com

www.realclearpolitics.com

www.foundingfathers.com

www.drudgereport.com

Library of Congress/Federalist Papers