Unions vs. Balancing the Budget
The world is undergoing tremendous upheavals and it appears that the American Labor Movement of the 20th century may be on its’ way to BEING history.
The labor movement in this country is at a tipping point, and public sector unions in this state should start getting real about concessions or risk becoming marginalized.
Are unions becoming so demonized that they are on the verge of disappearing altogether?
The American public is not nearly as gullible as they were in recent years. The problem isn’t unions, but PUBLIC unions, which are negotiating with PUBLIC funds.
The problem isn’t worker rights, which Americans still very much believe in, but rather TAXPAYER Rights, and the need for all workers to be productive and worthy of their pay and benefits.
The problem isn’t public sector workers, which Americans still value and want first-rate service from, but rather public sector UNIONS, which have to be reconsidered 80 years after Democratic Party icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed the concept of collective bargaining for public employees. Was FDR right?
So if the ongoing battle we’re seeing in Wisconsin is going to be portrayed as a struggle for all workers’ rights, the opposite portrayal in this current tough economy will include the following questions:
1) How do all the fake sick notices and ability to organize throughout the entire state and country make those fighting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the elected Republican legislative majorities the underdog? In other words, who’s oppressing whom?
2) Why did it take this current series of events to drag the public unions in Wisconsin to the table to accept concessions after years of pleading? In other words, are public sector unions hearing the voice of the people, or are they the ones who are tone-deaf?
3) Do those protesting Governor Walker really represent the will of the American majority, or just the Nancy Pelosi minority that got bounced out after last November’s elections?
4) Will Walker become a hero or a goat if he stands his ground (perhaps a peek at how New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is doing will answer that question)?
Arguably, the biggest tragedy in all this is that we NEED public sector workers, and that some of those workers are actually in need of a raise. However, merit and productivity do NOT appear to come across as the main driving forces behind what leads to increased pay, benefits and pensions for public sector unions in a nation and world that is really coming to grips with its own limited economy and resources.
There are bigger political implications than the labor standoff going on in Wisconsin:
Governor Jerry Brown will have not only a hard time getting a tax hike extension on the ballot, but will likely fail to pass any said ballot measure without fixing the structural deficit that can only come about with pension/pay reform of public sector employees. With the current public focus on Wisconsin, it’ll be a simple “no public sector reforms, no tax hikes here in California”. Last November’s fiscally-conservative outcome of the ballot measures is proof of that.
Finally, Gallup reports that fewer voters are identifying themselves as Democratic just as fewer voters are identifying themselves as Republican.
Stated differently, both parties are going to have to prove themselves to their voters. The Republican establishment is terrified of the tea party crowd (which I consider myself a part of); will there be a similar tea-party-like phenomenon among fair-minded but neglected liberal taxpayers who’ve had enough of being taken for granted as loyal Democrats?
Please, just promise me that you’ll think about it.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Obamacare Debate Continues
This Week in Health Reform: March 12, 2010
This week President Obama traveled outside of Washington to rally support for his health care reform plan, while Republicans continued to highlight the risks involved with approving the Senate version before contentious provisions are removed.
On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office released its scoring of the Senate's health care reform bill passed last December. The President's plan was built on this legislation, though his version has not yet been scored by the CBO.
Meanwhile, Business Week highlighted the complexities of the health care system through sharing a widow's perspective of her husband's end of life care and the value of their private health insurance.
As the health care reform debate continues to take shape this year, we encourage you and others to engage members of Congress by visiting the Health Action Network.
Health Care Reform
Business Groups Launch Ad Release to Combat Legislation: As President Obama attempted to garner increased support for his health care overhaul, a coalition of 248 business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a 10-day, $10 million ad campaign aimed at pressuring lawmakers to oppose the health care reform bill. Business groups say the Democratic legislation will hurt companies by adding new taxes and costly requirements while failing to control medical costs. The ads will run on national cable television and in 17 key states around the country, targeting moderate and conservative Democrats.
In addition, the health insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), launched a $1 million ad campaign Tuesday on national cable television. The AHIP ad directly responds to attacks on the industry by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Citing data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services showing that insurance costs only make up 4 percent of health care spending, the ad points out that hospitals, doctors, and drugs are the real reason for rising health care costs.
Public Opinion
Americans Still Opposed to Reform: In a newly released Rasmussen Reports survey, 53 percent of American voters continue to oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Further, 54 percent believe passage of this proposal will lead to higher health care costs, and 49 percent believe it will reduce the quality of care. Only 17 percent of respondents said this plan would reduce health care costs as promised.
In a recent poll conducted by Gallup, a slight majority of Americans would advise their Members of Congress to vote against the current health care plan and 48 percent disapprove of the President's plan for reform. The poll also finds that those who oppose the bill oppose the approach while supporting the general concept of reform. Among those who disapprove the bill, 62 percent would prefer that Congress scrap this legislation and start over; while 37 percent prefer Congress not work on reform at all.
159 Ways the Senate Bill Is a Government Takeover of Health Care: This week the Senate Republican Policy Committee unveiled a list of new boards, bureaucracies, and programs that would be created in the 2,733-page Senate health care bill that serves as the framework for President Obama's health proposal.
David P. Bernal
This week President Obama traveled outside of Washington to rally support for his health care reform plan, while Republicans continued to highlight the risks involved with approving the Senate version before contentious provisions are removed.
On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office released its scoring of the Senate's health care reform bill passed last December. The President's plan was built on this legislation, though his version has not yet been scored by the CBO.
Meanwhile, Business Week highlighted the complexities of the health care system through sharing a widow's perspective of her husband's end of life care and the value of their private health insurance.
As the health care reform debate continues to take shape this year, we encourage you and others to engage members of Congress by visiting the Health Action Network.
Health Care Reform
Business Groups Launch Ad Release to Combat Legislation: As President Obama attempted to garner increased support for his health care overhaul, a coalition of 248 business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a 10-day, $10 million ad campaign aimed at pressuring lawmakers to oppose the health care reform bill. Business groups say the Democratic legislation will hurt companies by adding new taxes and costly requirements while failing to control medical costs. The ads will run on national cable television and in 17 key states around the country, targeting moderate and conservative Democrats.
In addition, the health insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), launched a $1 million ad campaign Tuesday on national cable television. The AHIP ad directly responds to attacks on the industry by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Citing data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services showing that insurance costs only make up 4 percent of health care spending, the ad points out that hospitals, doctors, and drugs are the real reason for rising health care costs.
Public Opinion
Americans Still Opposed to Reform: In a newly released Rasmussen Reports survey, 53 percent of American voters continue to oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Further, 54 percent believe passage of this proposal will lead to higher health care costs, and 49 percent believe it will reduce the quality of care. Only 17 percent of respondents said this plan would reduce health care costs as promised.
In a recent poll conducted by Gallup, a slight majority of Americans would advise their Members of Congress to vote against the current health care plan and 48 percent disapprove of the President's plan for reform. The poll also finds that those who oppose the bill oppose the approach while supporting the general concept of reform. Among those who disapprove the bill, 62 percent would prefer that Congress scrap this legislation and start over; while 37 percent prefer Congress not work on reform at all.
159 Ways the Senate Bill Is a Government Takeover of Health Care: This week the Senate Republican Policy Committee unveiled a list of new boards, bureaucracies, and programs that would be created in the 2,733-page Senate health care bill that serves as the framework for President Obama's health proposal.
David P. Bernal
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Last Straw! (Welcome to the USSA)
Welcome to the CHANGE you can believe in!
First, the government seizes control of private industry and banking. Then, they what to introduce someone to evaluate when you should die or receive medical treatment and now:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/
Fox News reports another power grab by our SUPREME LEADER and his Czars. It seems that the government now wishes to control any free speech or expression on the internet.
Is this the land that I love or what?
If you are concerned start supporting a change in 2010.
From one patriot to another, 'now is the time to fight for freedom!'
First, the government seizes control of private industry and banking. Then, they what to introduce someone to evaluate when you should die or receive medical treatment and now:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/
Fox News reports another power grab by our SUPREME LEADER and his Czars. It seems that the government now wishes to control any free speech or expression on the internet.
Is this the land that I love or what?
If you are concerned start supporting a change in 2010.
From one patriot to another, 'now is the time to fight for freedom!'
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Nationalized Healthcare?
One of the most important debates in Washington, D.C. is centered on the nationalization of healthcare, essentially putting all or most Americans on the equivalent of Medicare.
The proponents of such an idea can often be heard saying that Americans have a “right” to medical care or that no one should be denied this right simply because they can’t or don’t want to pay for it.
As a nation, we continue to move away from personal (individual) responsibility. We see this with children, our workforce, corporate leadership and sadly even with our elected officials.
Whenever, you do not accept personal responsibility for your behavior, choices or finances you abdicate that responsibility to others.
Before, deciding if you are for or against nationalized healthcare – ask yourself this question. How well run or efficient is our federal government? And, do you think that the same people who have stolen the Social Security funds collected from your paychecks, manipulated the Consumer Price Index, and continue to manage the devaluation of the U.S. Dollar will do a better job with healthcare?
The argument regarding being denied healthcare due to inability to pay is simply untrue. Because, it is currently a legal obligation of hospitals and emergency rooms to provide care to everyone.
Regarding, our right to healthcare…
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says in part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nowhere does it mention anything about free Viagra.
In school, we were taught that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified in 1791, and collectively they form our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Second Amendment enumerates the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment says someone shall “not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” and the Sixth outlines the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”
We could go on, but these rights bear a common thread. Each restricts the government from taking what Americans naturally possess. You have a life, the liberty to do as you wish, and the ability to pursue whatever happiness means to you. No one has to give these rights to you because you naturally begin life with them.
Rights are not about giving you something for free; they are about protecting natural liberties from those who would take them away from you.
For instance, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not however, say that you get guns for free if you don’t have one.
This is analogous to the issue of health care “rights.” If socialized-medicine proponents argued that everyone should have the right to go where and when they want to receive the medical treatment they want and need, I would agree with them. But instead, they argue that someone else should be compelled to pay for the costs of medical care that others want to receive.
When you hear someone say that health care should be “free” or that the “government” should pay for it, they are really talking about two payment methods. The first requires doctors, nurses, and other medical care providers to work without compensation, via government fiat, so that the patient doesn’t have to pay. The second option provides that the government will require others to work for nothing in order to transfer their income to pay for the health care of another.
In reality, the current healthcare proposal does some of both. But by doing so, it effectively restricts the rights of people by forcing a significant part of the population to work for free so that others get the benefits of their labors without charge. Make no mistake, such proposals deprive the populace of freedom; they do not extend it.
A “right” to services without charge, that forces someone else to provide for you, does not and should not ever exist. No one in a free society should have a “right” to anything that requires others to toil against their will on behalf of those unwilling to provide for themselves.
There absolutely should be a number of changes in the healthcare system and as a society; we have a number of ways to care for the indigent. But we should move farther away from the failed government-controlled medical models, rather than expanding that failure. Addressing healthcare is something we are already prepared to do. By empowering private enterprise we can achieve more economical, advanced, and better alternatives to that of a government-run health care system. In so doing, we can enhance the ability of the people to embrace the true fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately, crazy zealots on both the left and right side of the aisle would have you believe it is the other guy’s fault. American it is time to stand up and do your own thinking!
The proponents of such an idea can often be heard saying that Americans have a “right” to medical care or that no one should be denied this right simply because they can’t or don’t want to pay for it.
As a nation, we continue to move away from personal (individual) responsibility. We see this with children, our workforce, corporate leadership and sadly even with our elected officials.
Whenever, you do not accept personal responsibility for your behavior, choices or finances you abdicate that responsibility to others.
Before, deciding if you are for or against nationalized healthcare – ask yourself this question. How well run or efficient is our federal government? And, do you think that the same people who have stolen the Social Security funds collected from your paychecks, manipulated the Consumer Price Index, and continue to manage the devaluation of the U.S. Dollar will do a better job with healthcare?
The argument regarding being denied healthcare due to inability to pay is simply untrue. Because, it is currently a legal obligation of hospitals and emergency rooms to provide care to everyone.
Regarding, our right to healthcare…
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says in part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nowhere does it mention anything about free Viagra.
In school, we were taught that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified in 1791, and collectively they form our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Second Amendment enumerates the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment says someone shall “not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” and the Sixth outlines the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”
We could go on, but these rights bear a common thread. Each restricts the government from taking what Americans naturally possess. You have a life, the liberty to do as you wish, and the ability to pursue whatever happiness means to you. No one has to give these rights to you because you naturally begin life with them.
Rights are not about giving you something for free; they are about protecting natural liberties from those who would take them away from you.
For instance, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not however, say that you get guns for free if you don’t have one.
This is analogous to the issue of health care “rights.” If socialized-medicine proponents argued that everyone should have the right to go where and when they want to receive the medical treatment they want and need, I would agree with them. But instead, they argue that someone else should be compelled to pay for the costs of medical care that others want to receive.
When you hear someone say that health care should be “free” or that the “government” should pay for it, they are really talking about two payment methods. The first requires doctors, nurses, and other medical care providers to work without compensation, via government fiat, so that the patient doesn’t have to pay. The second option provides that the government will require others to work for nothing in order to transfer their income to pay for the health care of another.
In reality, the current healthcare proposal does some of both. But by doing so, it effectively restricts the rights of people by forcing a significant part of the population to work for free so that others get the benefits of their labors without charge. Make no mistake, such proposals deprive the populace of freedom; they do not extend it.
A “right” to services without charge, that forces someone else to provide for you, does not and should not ever exist. No one in a free society should have a “right” to anything that requires others to toil against their will on behalf of those unwilling to provide for themselves.
There absolutely should be a number of changes in the healthcare system and as a society; we have a number of ways to care for the indigent. But we should move farther away from the failed government-controlled medical models, rather than expanding that failure. Addressing healthcare is something we are already prepared to do. By empowering private enterprise we can achieve more economical, advanced, and better alternatives to that of a government-run health care system. In so doing, we can enhance the ability of the people to embrace the true fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately, crazy zealots on both the left and right side of the aisle would have you believe it is the other guy’s fault. American it is time to stand up and do your own thinking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)