Deep Thoughts

Why Allow Public Employee Unions?

Do you understand why we have public employee unions? I do not.

Is it to correct mistreatment? Those of us awake during history class recall the strike breaking violence and unsafe workplaces in the early 20^th Century. But not for public employees.

Job security? Public sector workers have much more job security than the rest of us. They are not fired due to low profits, mergers or global competition. In fact some even have “tenure” –basically lifetime employment for no reason I can figure out. Again, they have always had more job security.

Pay? Yes, we thought public employees accepted lower pay for job security and a kinder and gentler, non-competitive work environment. But surprise, surprise: turns out their pay and benefits are measurably higher.

Then there are the teachers. The world has changed: more working moms, fewer manners in the classroom, fewer supplies and all kinds of mandated distractions–example: AIDS training-that make teaching harder every year. But public school teachers work–and certainly work hard–for only 9 months a year and get paid for 12. Not bad.

Furthermore, they often tell me they are “professionals” and therefore know best how to teach. Then in their next breath they want to be able to strike for higher pay. Something is wrong here. I’d suggest they pick one status or another: (a) union or (b) professional. You cannot be both in my book.

Even President Franklin Roosevelt was against public unions. “Meticulous attention,” the president insisted in 1937, “should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The reason? F.D.R. believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” [from CCNY Professor Daniel DiSalvo]

So now where are we?  Public employees are breaking the bank, especially with their outrageous, unfunded pensions. A Stanford study calcualted that California’s unfunded pension liability exceeds $500 billion.  This is six times our entire annual budget. This can never be paid.

What is being done?

Today. the Wisconsin legislature is voting to nullify state worker collective bargaining. Also, to require sustainable pensions and health care contributions.

>Ohio Gov. John Kasich is pushing a bill to outlaw strikes by public employees, dump the anti-competitive "prevailing wage" that jacks up costs of contracts and get rid of those who walk off the job.

>New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is taking on teacher unions and several other public employee groups at once.

>In New Mexico, Susana Martinez is limiting state services for illegal immigrants, angering public unions.

>Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is initiating public-employee pension reform.

Unfortunately, this is only nibbling around the edges of the problem. I predict/suggest the following:

1. Eliminate pensions for all new hire public workers. Most taxpayers do not have them; why should public workers?
2. Renegotiate all existing pensions to a sustainable level. This will include higher employee contributions, eliminate spousal pensions and reduce final salary basis.
3. Employee won’t renegotiate? Fine, return all monies to them they have put in with interest and they are out of the program.
4. Implement private business efficiencies into state government, primarily to reduce headcount.
5. Change Federal law to allow states to go bankrupt.
6. Institute draconian punishment for elected officials who approve fiscally unsustainable programs.

Otherwise, we are stuck with this:

California’s Proposition Tangle

This year California voters are faced with an especially confusing set of propositions. To help understand what to do, I am seeking your input.

My “first pass” follows. Please let me know what I have missed. Or feel free to agree.

Prop 19. Legalize marijuana? NO. Avoids turning California into Holland.

Prop 20. Redistricting by independent commission? YES. Politicians cannot be trusted to do this.

Prop 21. Tax surcharge for Parks?  NO. This is yet another California  “wacky tax” floated by special interests. Parks should be funded by the general budget and user fees.

Prop 22. Prohibits Borrowing Various Funds. YES. If California had a proper and timely budget, this issue goes away.

Prop 23. Delay tighter air pollution restrictions until employment improves? YES. Regardless of your feelings on Global Warming, this delay is necessary during our current economic mess.

Prop 24. Repeals certain business tax rules? UNKNOWN. Can somebody explain this one?

Prop 25. Reduce number of legislative votes for budget? NO. While this sounds appealing, I fear even more out-of-control budget giveaways, i.e., “vote buying” by incumbents.

Prop 26. Raise number of legislative votes to approve certain fees? UNKNOWN. Can somebody explain this one, too?

Prop 27. Redistricting by Politicians? NO. This would continue obvious conflict of interest, which has caused our current problems in Sacramento.

Again, please let me know what you think.

Hope You Don’t Notice The Change

It is unfortunate that President Obama is a person of color. This allows him and his handlers to hide his frightening expansion of government behind Race.

This works because all of us—one way or another—feel the pain of African Americans. After all they were slaves, weren’t they?

Before looking that question in the eye, consider Obama’s huge government expansions:

Ø He has permanently increased Federal government 25%.

Ø Almost a Trillion dollars in stimulus money has been spent to control joblessness. This has failed miserably.

Ø This spending is financed with borrowed money, thereby indebting us for generations to come. This will doubtless reduce our standard of living, forever.

Ø ObamaCare—his takeover of the healthcare industry—is so complex that some say “getting it up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats granted Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.” [Link to ObamaCare org chart at end.] Over 16,000 IRS agents will be hired to enforce ObamaCare. Furthermore, it fails to control the elephant in the room: trial lawyers driving up costs with medical malpractice lawsuits. Probable reason: trial lawyers donate heavily to Democrats.

Ø The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act­—nicknamed FinReg—raises costs, singles out winners (large banks), and again fails to deal with its elephant in the room: corrupt lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Probable reason: Fannie and Freddie donate heavily to Democrats.

The American consciousness has been overwhelmed with 1,000s of pages of new law. It is as if Obama’s campaign slogan was really “Hope You Don’t Notice The Change.”

Which brings us back to race. The Obama Administration is clearly using race as camouflage. Here is why it works so well: Martin Luther King.

Many of us remember Dr. King’s dream: “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

I shared that dream at the time and still do. To me it means true equality in a meritocracy, leading to individual self-reliance. What could be better?

Unfortunately, over the last 50 years The Dream descended into special programs for Blacks. Great Society, Head Start, Aid To Dependent Children, Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and endless special deals for Minority-Owned everything.

Was this necessary? Maybe once. But now we have moved from equal opportunity through equal outcomes into the realm of not feeling bad!  This, of course, is the goal of all politically correct behavior: that no one shall ever feel bad about anything.

Consider FinReg: First, it requires that any bank or financial institution that deals with the Government must have minority employees in the same “ratio as the population.” A huge new quota system has just been launched. And it gets better: FinReg rules do NOT apply to minority-owned banks.

How did all this happen? The Congressional Black Caucus wrote much of FinReg. Apparently, after 50 years of special deals for Blacks, this is simply “business as usual,” the regular rules do not apply to them. Different Strokes, For Different Folks.

Who runs the Black Caucus: Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, both of whom are under Congressional indictments for ethics violations. Of course, we cannot really blame them: they have lived the last 50 years thinking the rules did not apply to them.

So how do we solve all this, once and for all?

I propose we compensate African Americans for past injustices and amend the Constitutional to bar race from all legislation, current and future.

Call it reparations, rebates, blood money: I don’t care. Simply pay $10,000 to each Black citizen over 18 years old. Then all minority and minority-owned programs are stricken from the books, forever. The Black Caucus is disbanded. These would all be unconstitutional.

My only exceptions to this payment would be

> Convicted felons. We don't want to reward this group.

The following are also excluded. They have already been rewarded.

> Recipients of public assistance

> Civil servant government employees

> Appointed government employees

> Elected government employees

This will instantly transform us into a nation where no one will ever again “be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Here is a link to the ObamaCare Organization Chart. It is “zoomable” to show the legal reference for each function. It demonstrates the unattainable folly of ObamaCare.  Download Obamacare Chart 7-28-10

Super Tuesday Thoughts

Tax and Spend Disease. Regular folks are revolting against the damage government can do. The Tea Party reacts to bailouts and an unsustainable health care plan. But the Tea Party’s deeper roots spring from decades of fear and anger over government overcontrol. Furthermore, congress people look less like public servants and more like private scammers. We shall see how this turns out..

Favoritism. The current Administration was elected by voters under 30, college professors, African-Americans, trial lawyers, labor unions, and–in a strange way–Illegal Immigrants. These groups expect to be paid off for their votes. The public is beginning to understand this favoritism. We shall see.

Governing vs. Campaigning. We are in the worst financial crisis in 75 years. We are fighting wars on two fronts. A huge industrial accident is polluting the Gulf of Mexico. Our Administration’s response is to blame the previous President, borrow trillions of dollars for unsound bailouts-stimulus (BS?) and give commencement speeches.

California Connection. Fortunately, we have a candidate who aspires to be America’s Margaret Thatcher. Meg Whitman is rich, conservative and moderately boring. This makes her more credible than all those Slick Willies and Cool Baracks.

November will be the final battle for California’s soul: Whitman will run against Jerry Brown. She could win, if her team correctly explains that the major cause of California fiscal disaster was Jerry Brown, himself. In 1978 then Governor Brown approved collective bargaining by police, fire and education workers. Our pension system has since devolved into an unfunded nightmare. We shall see.

[Since 2009 I have explained California’s pension mess with the Moraga Fire Chief story. See anecdote at the end.]

The Dilemma. Entitlement cost is the elephant in the room. Only by smacking down entitlements, pundits tell us, can we put our fiscal house in order. Perhaps. But what of us who have worked hard for 50+ years and paid into these programs?

My employers and I have paid in–including interest–over $600,000.00 into Medicare and Social Security. Just for me. This is a huge amount. I am deeply offended that my lifetime contributions are lumped in with Welfare and other unpaid entitlements.

An Unintended Consequence. The Democrat-controlled Congress thumbed its noses at America when it crammed a poorly conceived healthcare bill down our throats. As an unintended consequence, these people have nationalized future Congressional elections. And rightly so, we all have much to loose if spendthrifts and know-nothings are elected across the country.

Fire chief anecdote. In 2009 Moraga Fire Chief Pete Nowicki retired at age 51. He was making $186,000. By cleverly accruing his vacation, he spiked his pension to $241,000 each year. The present value of Nowicki’s windfall is $3.9 MILLION. Under California’s generous rules, this pension is payable at 100% to his wife, in the event Nowicki predeceases her.

It gets better: after Nowicki started drawing his pension, he was hired back as interim chief for an additional $176,400. This raised this gross income to $417,400 annually.

And why was he hired back? The fire district was concerned about rising pension costs, so they retained Nowicki to help them understand what to do.

Understanding Your New Government

Your government is new and improved for 2010. A child or grandchildren may ask you to explain our wonderful new system. Here is a primer. 

The Federal Government has three official branches: 

1. Executive. This is the Office of Symbolism and Rhetoric. It is tailored to the Twitterific voters, who can only handle fleeting pictures and micro-factoids. Since this group is easily confused, all decisions are made behind closed doors. This is called Transparency. The Chief Executive lives in a symbolically pure “White” House. The current resident has changed his anthem from Hail to the Chief to The Great Pretender. He was a non-practicing Constitutional lawyer and talented public speaker. 

2. Legislative. There are two bodies. The first is the House of Union Supporters. Their task is to rubber stamp the kowtowing to labor unions done by the Office of Symbolism and Rhetoric. Most members are failed business people. 

The second body is the Senate of Trial Lawyer Obsequiousness. It is charged with protecting trial lawyers from any and all income reductions. All members in this Senate are failed trial lawyers. 

3. Judicial. This branch--"The Supremes"--is the repository of Politically Correct Appointments. Their primary duty is to pose for a group picture each October. All members were successfully appointed somewhere else before this. 

4. The unofficial fourth branch of government is The Media. Extremely powerful, this is CNN and iTunes. 

There are several sub-branches worth noting: 

> Department of Military Reaction. Its job is never-ending combat against a handful of Muslim Jihadists, who--in turn--derive auto-erotic pleasure from reliving the Crusades on their Game Boys.

> Department of Military Procurement. Its job is letting huge contracts for weapons systems no one wants but that are manufactured in states whose incumbents are behind in polls. 

> Department of New World Order. Made up of the kindest and gentlest State Department veterans, its sole function is supporting every whim of the United Nations. 

> Department of the Treasury. Its job is keeping our major lender happy. That is why the current Treasury Secretary majored in Chinese Culture and even speaks Mandarin. Way to go! 

> Department of Dependency. This secret department has agents throughout the government. Its charter is to annually increase the percentage of American citizens who depend on government programs to survive. This department has enhanced its results by importing “clients” (their name for non-working humans) from poor countries south of the United States. 

There you have it. This should help any young relative or friend comprehend our Brave New World.

Obama’s War- Something Has to Change

A long-time friend copied me on a letter to our representatives. He urged them to stop funding the Afghan War. Instead to “Protect our borders only and let other countries take responsibility for their own problems.” Here is my response to him.

You and I have traded political thoughts for sometime. Usually we agree. Sometimes not.

Regarding the Afghan War: I am profoundly…ambivalent.

The Islamofascist movement continues to be a threat to the United States. However, Afghanistan is looking more and more like Southeast Asia years ago. Corrupt government, tribal factions, drug production, you name it.

Also, the immense costs are especially difficult, as Obama simultaneously wants the US to become a French-style socialist democracy. Something has to change, all right.

After Obama’s speech, Bill O’Reilly interviewed Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). O’Reilly was doing his standard hawkish shtick: support the troops, kill al-Qaeda and Obama needs to be more inspirational in this time of war.

Kucinich—liberal that he is—calmly advised O'Reilly that since the Cato Institute, Libertarians, Ron Paul and traditional Liberals were coming together against the Afghan War, old labels of Liberal and Conservative not longer applied.

Now, I think Kucinich is really on to something. I expect a populist uprising—possibly figureheaded by Sara Palin—in 2010. And to handle the objection that Sara Palin is an international affairs dimwit: would she have been bowing to Heads of State, as Obama is wont to do?  I don’t think so.

Do you recall in the 70s when the Hells Angels and The John Birch Society teamed up?  For different reasons, they both were against California’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law. As they say, politics make strange bedfellows.

Opposition to the Afghan War—per your message to our leaders—is the au courant and vastly more important example.

I have obviously been thinking about all this as I put up the Christmas decorations. As a “retired” Army Officer, I know a lot about the military and how it functions within our government. On the other hand, I know little about combat. (Boy, was I lucky.)

I did learn in an undergraduate Military Science course that World Wars would be a thing of the past.  Instead, we would be engaged in “limited war,” perhaps large such as Korea or very small such as our action in the Dominican Republic in the early 60s.

Now decades later, perhaps we are into the next phase: Wars of Surrogates. Iran funds Hamas and possibly the Taliban. Thus, we meet enemies who are “stateless combatants”. There are no countries behind them with something to loose.

An enemy with nothing to loose is horrendously dangerous. We need to recalibrate our entire military thinking. Our current politicians are not up to this task.

I have used the label “Islamofascist” since 9/11. Obama feels that is Politically Incorrect. So, who are these people, anyway?  More importantly, how do we treat them?

The best analogy for terrorists I can come with is pirates. For centuries pirates were organized, violent criminal scumbags who use military techniques to gain their goals. Not being soldiers from nation-states, they are beyond the rules of war. For example, I do not believe any terrorist groups have ratified the Geneva Convention. Obamacrats seem to think the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists. I do not. And US rules of evidence for criminal trials apply even less.

Of course, American decency does apply, once we have captured the (alleged) terrorist. Military tribunals are the way to handle them. But using formal war protocols to manage terrorist outcomes—as the Jane Fonda crowd, ACLU, Code Pink and Attorney General Holder desire—does not apply legally in my mind.

Conclusion. I am tending to agree with you. Let us use our resources for Homeland Security and perhaps an aggressive campaign to communicate American values: religious freedom, meritocracy, equality of women, no public whipping, ban the head-to-toe Islamic muumuu, etc.

If Delta Force types need to operate in Afghanistan-Pakistan, fine. But “winning hearts and minds” is an impossible dream, especially considering the low ability the charming Confused Person in the White House.

One Down, One to Go

Is ClimateGate the melt down of the Global Warming movement? Seems so.

Last Friday computer records leaked from Britain’s prestigious Climate Research Unit indicated that “…scientists modified data to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory, tried to silence dissenting opinions and reflect a concerted effort to restrict access to climate data possibly by deleting it.” So said the SF Examiner.

For several years I have written that Global Warming is scientifically silly. Harebrained “corrections” will cripple our economy. Nice to see the world catching up. Now on to the next big silliness.

We are in the grip of the worst economic contradiction and job loss since the 1930’s. Yet our country is led by a woefully inexperienced person. He seems to hate the system that made America great. With worsening unemployment, he stakes his presidency on…healthcare reform?

Talk about doing the wrong thing. The Administration should be pushing a crash program to expand private sector jobs. Lower taxes and reduced regulation are the only way to do this.

Instead, The Government gobbles up an increasing slice of our economic pie. It is now over 40 percent.

Current healthcare plans would expand government even further. When our children and grandchildren realize what we have done to them, they will never forgive us.

Is there any hope? The Dean of the Harvard Medical School just gave the health-reform debate a “failing grade,” because it increases taxes, deficits, and medical costs, while reducing lifesaving medical innovations needed to save patients’ lives.

The hope is our elected officials shift their thinking to the dean and away from the Chicago political hacks in the White House.

Here is a link to the Dean’s article.Health Reform Gets a 'Failing' Grade

AARP's Bribe to Washington

Since August, I have criticized the pending abuse of over one-fourth of all seniors on Medicare—the Medicare Advantage participants. Our “elected officials” are gutting Med Adv to pay for so-called health insurance reform.

So why has the AARP—supposedly our advocate—endorsed this harm to seniors? Here is the answer:

“The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company. It is one of the main suppliers of Medigap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medigap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medigap revenues.

“Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP—which supposedly represents them—will make more money.”

[From “ObamaCare Endorsements: What The Bribe Was” by Dick Morris in theHill.com, November 6, 2009.]  

Isn’t it great how our elected officials function behind closed doors as tools for business interests? And how clever businesses like AARP tout their non-profit status to milk trusting elderly “members,” then use the money to buy profitable special treatment from these same elected officials? One hand washes the other, as they say. 

But what about Medicare Advantage, itself? According to ObamaCare advocates, Med Adv is an inefficient program that unfairly profits insurance companies.

Not so, according to a study out of John Hopkins University:

> Hospital readmission rate for Medicare Advantage plans was 27 percent lower than the national average for traditional Medicare.

> Med Adv plans had preventable emergency room visit rate that was 86 percent lower than the traditional Medicare.

> On preventable inpatient admissions, Med Adv plans were 87 percent lower than traditional Medicare. Sounds like all Medicare should be Medicare Advantage!

I have little faith in The Government doing anything well, especially at a lower cost. Witness the low availability of swine flu immunizations. Now that ObamaCare will eliminate one of the few programs that actually works—Medicare Advantage—I have even less faith in The Government.  

For the John Hopkins study, go to This Article 

Live Free or Die

Years ago I was surprised to get admitted to a college in the New Hampshire wilderness. Once there, I noticed every license plate said “Live Free or Die.” So I asked the janitor what it meant.

“It’s our state motto, by Jesus,” he said in his craggy lingo. “A’yup, we don’t like being told what to do.”

For four years every passing car reminded me to “Live Free or Die.” Naturally, I became a Libertarian. My personal tenets

• All taxes are theft.

• If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one.

• If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t date people you meet in the restroom.

• And, all taxes are theft.

We humans are complex creatures. We adore free stuff, but are hard-wired to pursue self-reliance. These two tendencies might be called Liberal and Conservative.

With cable news and a Far Left Administration in Washington, our differences are more pronounced than in the 60s. The following anonymous thoughts reveal why:

If a conservative doesn’t like guns,he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a liberal is, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoy his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful. His liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his own and his entire extended family.

The Nefarious Agenda

The ObamaCare cat is out of the bag. Most folks get it. Our Nice Young Man president wants to expand government power. Period. Reform of health care or health insurance or whatever is just an excuse.

Current “health excuse” proposals are too complicated. We must require simplicity so everyone can understand what is being done to us. Even Congress People. This needs to happen far ahead of any voting in Washington.

We need simplicity of both content and process.

Content simplicity. What are the exact issues to be fixed?

1. Pre-existing conditions. These are code words for real consumer problems with insurance companies. They include inability to get affordable coverage and cancellation if you get something bad. But this is easily fixed. Simply allow the sale of “guaranteed insurability” riders. I have such riders on my term life insurance and my long-term care insurance. What could be simpler?

2. Equal medical care. What does this really mean?  Must healthy young people pay in?  If they are working, they are already paying into Medicare. Millions of people are eligible for public programs—example, Medicaid—but have not signed up.  We don’t need to change anything for them, do we?  If people are here illegally, do we want to pay for them, too?

Illegals are an interesting case. They may exceed 10 million. As written, current bills would indeed cover them. Ironically, these same bills would gut Medicare Advantage plans, which help mostly low-income seniors. How many? 10 million are on Medicare Advantage. So will we screw Grandma to take care of people who should not be here? Yep, that’s the deal.

3. Lower cost. Mandates, electronic medical records and a government-owned insurance company are major ideas. Mandates always drive up costs and reduce benefits. Medical record systems only tinker at the margin. So-called “public option” would eventually result in a government-only behemoth. If you like going to the DMV, you will love a massive National Health System.

The best way to lower cost would be elimination of the Medical Malpractice Industry. Here is a great job for the government.

Malpractice claims would be handled by certified medical arbitration. Awards would be limited and standardized. No more trial lawyers. Providers could lose their licenses for really bad problems. This would keep them on their toes. I think Kaiser Permanente already does this.

Process simplicity.

A. Agree on the content before doing anything.

B. Examine current pilot projects. Massachusetts is mandating coverage. How is that going? Are the costs working out? What should be different?

C. Slowly test new pilot projects. Measure the results and improve the project as necessary. Over time we can see what works and what does not. Then we shall be ready to tell Congress what health care improvements we want.

The all-or-nothing approach of ObamaCare exposes his nefarious agenda: much Bigger Government at any cost. This is a legacy we can do without.