Justin Smith writes about defunding Obamacare even if the debt ceiling is not ultimately raised. He believes the onus of the lack of budget will fall on President Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the big spending Socialist-minded Dems. Most importantly Justin calls on individual States to utilize Article V of the U.S. Constitution to call a Constitutional Convention with a specified agenda to repeal Obamacare. A specified agenda would deal with the fear of both sides of the political spectrum that a Constitutional Convention is not a run-away convention destroying the spirit of the Founding Fathers’ revolutionary Constitution.
A Patriot’s Answer
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 9/23/2013 11:14 AM
As the October 1, 2013 enrollment period for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) nears and Obama and a host of temporary politicians and Progressives gleefully ruminate over permanent societal changes effected by the PPACA, some Americans are preparing to submit to the ignoble lie called “Obamacare,” even though nothing exists in the entirety of U.S. history, the Constitution and the Commerce Clause that empowers any of the three branches of the federal government to force a person to enter into a legally binding contract against the individual’s will. And, no matter what nonsense Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, the majority of the American people still know Obamacare to be unConstitutional and representative of a gross overreach of power by the Obama administration and the Progressives.
Obama has “found loopholes,” that he and Progressives surely knew existed beforehand, which exempt Congress and their staffers and the Executive and staff from Obamacare. They act as if this is the Obama monarchy and they, Republican and Democrat alike, are his entourage of aristocrats!
Since when do we make laws applicable to only certain segments of society anymore? Since when are government officials above the law? And, why should I or anyone else comply with a law that even exempts the unions and does not apply evenly and equally throughout our society?
Although Obama has warned of an “economic backslide” if the Republicans bring the Obamacare fight to the continuing resolution and fight him over the budget (lack of a budget) and raising the debt ceiling, some Republicans in the Senate, such as Bob Corker (R-TN)are refusing to attempt to defund Obamacare by September 30, because they do not want the blame for any government shutdown that may result from this fight; and now that the House funded the entire government except for Obamacare with a vote of 230 to 189, the Progressives in the Senate probably will not pass the bill, Obama will not sign it and the Progressive Democrats will be the ones shutting down the government.
Why run from this battle? Let the government shut down, and place the onus on Obama; his actions during such a shutdown will surely serve to return the Congress and the Senate to solid, conservative, patriotic American leadership in 2014 and 2016. And, do not worry about the essentials of government, because they continue normally during a government shutdown, unless Obama’s inclination towards illegal activity moves him to act unConstitutionally and interfere with the military, Medicare and Social Security.
House Representatives, such as Diane Black (R-TN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have suggested that a government shutdown will allow Obama to decide which government services are the most vital for the “protection of life and property,” and they believe he will have the government purse at his disposal through “discretionary spending”. However, the President does not have such authority anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or any of its 27 Amendments. Essentially, they are saying that Obama will fund the PPACA even if he has to take funds from numerous government departments, illegally and unConstitutionally… which has never stopped him before; and, he may do just that, since he has no regard for the law, the U.S. Constitution or Our American Heritage!
Many elected officials, as well as noted newscaster Brit Hume (FoxNews), have observed that Obama will not readily accept a delay of the individual mandate, even though he illegally delayed the business mandate, because Obama needs to get the money flowing and people hooked on the “free” subsidized benefits under the PPACA; it is nearly impossible to reduce or end such a program, once it is really up and running, as history shows.
We cannot let Obamacare become permanently embedded in the social fabric of America; good or bad, Obamacare is nowhere near ready for implementation, therefore, delay, at the very least, is absolutely necessary, but ‘We the People’ continue to demand, “Defund Obamacare!”
When will anyone stand and fight? …ever?
“We don’t have the votes”…damn you Bob Corker…tell me something I don’t know and get out there and fight for those votes! If You spent as much time fighting to defund Obamacare as you do holding Obama’s hand and stating the obvious, Obamacare would already be a thing of the past!
Obama and his administration, the U.S. federal government or any government does not have the authority to trespass on our individual sovereignty. So, I will not be signing up for Obamacare on October 1, 2013 through January 2017, or at any time during my lifetime, and I will not voluntarily answer any medical questions on IRS tax-forms; fine me $285, $975 or $2085, I will not pay; come to arrest me, I will resist.
Anyone following my example will be called “criminal” by Obama and the Progressives… the real criminals. But, there is nothing “criminal” in defending the U.S. Constitution, Our American Heritage and our freedom, as we strive to return America to governance as a Constitutional Republic, rather than under an elitist despot. You are the Patriots!
As we engage in civil disobedience, let us all start a conversation with our state legislators and ask them to start working towards a States’ Convention for the purpose of proposing an Amendment to the Constitution that repeals the PPACA. A good starting point will have one state legislature…Tennessee, Virginia, Texas?… discuss this quickly with the other 49 legislatures; as soon as they can come to an agreement on this matter, they can begin choosing their delegates for the Convention.
Each respective state legislature will vote to attend or decline participation in such a Convention, and some states may place the question to the people in a referendum. It only takes thirty-three states presenting their Applications to congress to get the ball rolling, and Congress cannot impede this process in any manner, because its role regarding Article V is purely ministerial; the President and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot interfere with this Application or a convening States’ Convention.
There is also not any need to fear the myth of a “runaway Convention,” since each state delegate is sent with a very specific agenda in mind and directed by a quorum of the state legislature. These delegates are also subject to immediate recall if they stray erroneously from previously decided guidelines. And, whatever is proposed at one of these Conventions, in this case repealing Obamacare, must receive an affirmative vote from three fourths of the states; it naturally will also take some time to organize, but it is time well invested for the future of the American people.
Freedom and the dignity of the individual has never been more available and assured than right here in America, until the advance of the Obama regime. Our ancestors paid a high price for this Freedom, and Americans are certainly poised to pay a high price now and battle Obama and the Progressives with every available means. Whether or not Congress and the Senate ultimately defund Obamacare, Americans can and will decide on their own if they will be a free, responsible and prosperous people living under a Constitutional limited government or a dependent, indolent and impoverished people living at the State’s pleasure: We are too great a nation to limit ourselves and tolerate the confines of the tranny embodied by the PPACA and Obama’s “fundamental transformation!”
By Justin O. Smith
© Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
John R. Houk
© November 9, 2011
I have been haphazardly examining the tax plans from GOP candidates for Election 2012. Where the tax plan has been weak I have included the candidate’s economic-budget plan to aright America’s boat:
The next candidate up is Governor Rick Perry’s plan. There is a GOP debate tonight and I am curious how much the debate will focus on the issues Republicans wish to know about. My curiosity stems from Herman Cain’s scandal situation which may or may not be politically motivated rather than the actual truth of Cain’s business past. As of this post I have not read about Cain’s response to Sharon Bialek’s rather detailed account of sexual impropriety. Also one of the three so-called anonymous gals has also come forward and I have not had time to read about that accusation. I am wondering how much or if any of this attack on Cain’s personal life from over decade ago that never went through any legal examination will be a part of tonight’s debate.
Below is Rick Perry writing about his tax plan posted in the Wall Street Journal. Below the glowing Perry article is a more analytical examination of Perry’s tax plan from International Business Times.
John R. Houk
© June 2011
I get many emails from Tony Newbill that usually relates to the development of a New World Order (NWO). Newbill basically is my Conspiracy Theory guru. Although I placed great strength into a lot of Conspiracy Theory in my early days of Internet usage and somewhat prior to my embracement of the Internet (i.e. the good ole days of books and magazines), these days I am not so much inclined. And yet, I still hold onto the thought that some Conspiracy Theories have an inkling of truth that should pick-up the ears of caution for all Americans.
There are two pet peeves of mine that many would classify as Conspiracy Theories, yet I believe their threat is very real to the American way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those two threats are the theopolitical nature of Islam and Marxist/Socialism.
Tony Newbill (and a few others) has convinced me there is a third threat. That threat is the ubiquitous undercurrent of the United Nations associated Agenda 21 (SA HERE). Agenda 21 appears to be a blend of Marxist/Socialism and wealthy Leftist global elites (including Americans) that have an agenda to manage the global population via the ecology, food production, and societal transformation to prevent population blow-back from an unhappy populace, population control by any means necessary and you get the idea.
In essence Agenda 21 has the concept of many power tentacles that makes the typical power to the people deception of Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Gramscism, and Maoism and so on to be backward concepts of political science in comparison.
There is one commonality in the midst of Political Islam, Marxist Socialism and Agenda 21. That commonality is the destruction of the American influenced Capitalism/Free Enterprise and the destruction of Judeo-Christian values that has been a huge influence in the development of Western Society as well as American life.
That commonality of hate from the triumvirate of global transformationists is probably a series of essays in itself. Tony Newbill sent me an email a couple of months ago wondering about State-Owned banks:
Feasibility of a CA State-owned Bank: The California Assembly Bill 750 Introduced to Study the Feasibility of a CA State-owned Bank; the USA needs this for ALL States Fast, because this is what’s heading our way.
Bill AB 750 is sponsored Assemblyman Ben Hueso. The Bill is entitled Bergeson-Peace Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Act.
The link was sent April 14, 2011 so if it is still functional (and it was as of today), then California State Assembly Committee work may have amended the Bill since the date I received it. The point I wish to examine though is the operation of a State-owned bank. At first glance a State-owned bank has the appearance of Socialism. It is Socialism in the sense that the State government owns and manages the bank separate from private enterprise.
Leftists like to point out a State-owned bank is owned by the people. However, the reality is the people have zero to do with the bank policy or bank management. A State-owned bank would be managed at the least by the State bureaucracy and at most by some direct accountability to a State Governor. That is not “people” ownership that is government ownership.
Then there is the centrist politician (both Democrat and Republican) that might provide the illusion of saying a State-owned bank is owned and accountable to the taxpayers. You know, like the Police Force on State and local arenas are taxpayer supported thus accountable to elected representatives. The thing is a majority of law enforcement are not directly accountable to the voting taxpayer. Most States have some sort of County elected Sheriff; most Police Chiefs or heads of State Police are appointed. Police organizations are accountable to budgets developed by City Councils or State Congresses but that is a long way from direct accountability to taxpaying voters. Policies are set in blue print by a bureaucracy and executed by the interpretation of the Chief Police executive.
The same undoubtedly apply to a State-owned bank, right?
Here is the paradigm that has inspired many States and not just California to explore the potential to create a State-owned bank. That paradigm comes from the only State-owned bank currently in operation in America. That State is North Dakota. North Dakota has had a State-owned bank for about 91 years.
Now think of that. North Dakota has had a State-owned bank that has not only weathered the near decade long Great Depression that began in 1929, but has survived various economic assaults on banks from inflation, bad loans and especially the biggest American recession (someday it may be called a depression) that assaulted our economy because of the domino effect of the bad paper loans of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Indeed the Bank of North Dakota (BND) actually registered a profit of $62 Million in 2010 when privately owned banks were struggling to survive. Now millions might sound like small scale for a State profit; however North Dakota’s population is 672,591 (2010 census).
The thing that is exciting other States that are contemplating the feasibility of a State-owned bank is the potential of per capita percentages adjusted to bigger populated States. That $62 Million profit in North Dakota might comparatively be in the hundreds of millions or in the billions with larger States that have larger economies.
When a State-owned bank makes a profit in competition with private banks based only fiscal decisions rather State mandated regulation favoring the State-owned bank, is that not Capitalism in action? Or is it still Socialism merely because the State owns and manages their bank?
Let us face one reality that applies to me and probably to a majority of other Americans. We the People for the most part are not economists. We rely on our ideological favorites that we want to trust to keep us informed, right? So here I go making some no-name blogger non-economist presumptive thoughts on State-owned banks.
My thought on State-owned banks at first glance is indeed they are an act of Socialism. Yet the BND paradigm is a successful competitive one that has brought prosperity rather than the typical Socialist atrophy that follows bureaucratic management. So let’s read a few pro-State-owned bank thoughts.
Mother Jones: How was the bank formed?
Eric Hardmeyer: It was created 90 years ago, in 1919, as a populist movement swept the northern plains. Basically it was a very angry movement by a large group of the agrarian sector that was upset by decisions that were being made in the eastern markets, the money markets maybe in Minneapolis, New York, deciding who got credit and how to market their goods. So it swept the northern plains. In North Dakota the movement was called the Nonpartisan League, and they actually took control of the legislature and created what was called an industrial program, which created both the Bank of North Dakota as a financing arm and a state-owned mill and elevator to market and buy the grain from the farmer. And we’re both in existence today doing exactly what we were created for 90 years ago. Only we’ve morphed a little bit and found other niches and ways to promote the state of North Dakota.
MJ: What makes your bank unique today?
EH: Our funding model, our deposit model is really what is unique as the engine that drives that bank. And that is we are the depository for all state tax collections and fees. And so we have a captive deposit base, we pay a competitive rate to the state treasurer. And I would bet that that would be one of the most difficult things to wrestle away from the private sector—those opportunities to bid on public funds. But that’s only one portion of it. We take those funds and then, really what separates us is that we plow those deposits back into the state of North Dakota in the form of loans. We invest back into the state in economic development type of activities. We grow our state through that mechanism.
MJ: So you are able to invest in certain areas because they provide a public good.
EH: Yeah, or a direction, whether it’s energy or primary sector type of businesses. We have specific loan programs that are designed at very low interest rates to encourage activity along certain lines. Here’s another thing: We’re gearing up for a significant flood in one of the communities here in North Dakota called Fargo. We’ve experienced one of those in another community about 12 years ago which prior to Katrina was the largest single evacuation of any community in the United States. And so the Bank of North Dakota, once the flood had receded and there were business needs, we developed a disaster loan program to assist businesses. So we can move quite quickly to aid with different types of scenarios. Whether it’s encouraging different economies to grow or dealing with a disaster.
MJ: What do private banks think of you?
EH: The interesting thing about the bank is we understand that we walk a fine line between competing and partnering with the private sector. We were designed and set up to partner with them and not compete with them. So most of the lending that we do is participatory in nature. It’s originated by a local bank and we come in and participate in the loan and use some of our programs to share risk, buy down the interest rate. We even provide guarantees similar to SBA to encourage certain activity for entrepreneurial startups. Aside from that, we also act as a bankers’ bank or a wholesale bank. So we provide services to banks, whether it’s check clearing, liquidity, or bond accounting safekeeping. There’s probably 20 other bankers’ banks across the country. So we act in that capacity as kind of a little mini-fed actually. And so we service 104 banks and provide liquidity to them and clear their checks and also we buy loans from them when they have a need to overline, whether it’s beyond their legal lending limit or they just want to share risk, we’ll do that. We’re a secondary market for residential loans, so we have a portfolio of $500 to $600 million of residential loans that we buy.
MJ: So what’s the advantage of a publicly owned “bankers’ bank” instead of a privately owned one?
EH: Our model is we use our deposit base to help [other banks] with funding their loans, even providing fed funds lines with our excess liquidity—we buy and sell fed funds and act as a clearinghouse for check clearing activity. That would be the benefit or different model. We’re a depository bank and can bring that to bear. (How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street; By Josh Harkinson; Mother Jones; Mar. 27, 2009 6:33 PM PDT)
What is the economic environment that makes the Bank of North Dakota successful that perhaps may not apply in another economic venue?
Because all state funds in North Dakota pass through BND, including regulatory and licensing fees, the institution is extremely well-capitalized. Because BND sticks to investing conservatively on behalf of the people and businesses of North Dakota, and ignores hinky transactions such as credit-default swaps, it has weathered the depressions and recessions of the 20th and 21st centuries with little turbulence.
In the midst of the current economy, with every other state in the country wrestling with crippling debt, North Dakota has none. It has billions in surplus. In addition to paying state government a competitive interest rate, BND issues dividends to the state. According to a March 7 article by Ellen Brown for GlobalResearch.ca, in 2008, the bank provided the state a 26 percent return in dividends alone. (Can State-Owned Development Banks Save America?; By Zane Fischer; Santa Fe Reporter; 03.16.2011)
The above quote is from a New Mexico newspaper. I quoted the part about BND; however the article was about a prospect of New Mexico entering the State-owned banking business. The author Zane Fischer refers to Ellen Brown of who I found an article that promotes California AB 750. Brown salivates about the potential a State-owned bank might do to save California from its debt woes. But note Brown relates to applying a California paradigm which is actually untested like the BND which has been tested successfully under the paradigm of an agricultural and business incentive economy that has avoided Housing as a principle business.
California is the eighth largest economy in the world, and it has a debt burden to match. It has outstanding general obligation bonds and revenue bonds of $158 billion, largely incurred for infrastructure. Of this tab, $70 billion is just for interest. Over $7 billion of California’s annual budget goes to pay interest on the state’s debt.
As large as California’s liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world. That’s the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds. Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit – or allowing a Wall Street bank to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital – California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.
California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility. Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here.
The Center for State Innovation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, was commissioned to do detailed analyses for the Washington and Oregon bills. Their conclusion was that a state-owned bank on the model of the Bank of North Dakota would have a substantial positive impact in those states, increasing employment, new lending, and government revenue.
What California Could Do with Its Own Bank
Banks create “bank credit” from capital and deposits, as explained here. Under existing capital requirements, $8 in capital can be leveraged into $100 in loans, drawing on the liquidity provided by the deposits to clear the outgoing checks. Assuming a 10% reserve requirement (the amount in deposits normally held in reserve), $8 in capital and $100 in deposits are sufficient to create $90 in loans ($100 less $10 held back for reserves).
In North Dakota (population 647,000), the Bank of North Dakota has $2.7 billion in deposits, or $4000 per capita. The majority of these deposits are drawn from the state’s own revenues. The bank has nearly the same sum ($2.6 billion) in outstanding loans.
California has 37 million people. If the California Investment Trust (CIT) performed like the BND, it might amass $148 billion in deposits. With $12 billion in capital, this $148 billion could generate $133 billion in credit for the state (subtracting 10%, or 14.8 billion, to satisfy reserve requirements).
There are various ways the state could come up with the capital, but one possibility that would not require new taxes or debt would be to simply draw on the treasurer’s existing pooled money investment account, which currently contains $65 billion in accumulated revenues dispersed to a variety of funds. This money is already invested; a portion could just be shifted to the CIT. Since it would be an investment in equity rather than an expenditure, it would not cost the state money. Rather, it would make money for the state. In recent years, the Bank of North Dakota has had a return on equity of 25-26%. Compare the 25-30% lost in the two years following the 2008 banking crisis by CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which invested its money on Wall Street.
There are many inviting possibilities for applying the CIT’s $133 billion in credit power, but here is one easy alternative that illustrates the cost-effectiveness of the approach. Assume the bank invested $133 billion in municipal bonds at 5% interest. This would give the state close to $7 billion annually in interest income – nearly enough to pay the interest tab on the state’s debt.
What California can do with its own bank, other states can do as well, on a scale proportionate to their populations and economies. North Dakota has a population that is less than 1/10th the size of Los Angeles; the BND produced $62 million in revenue last year and $2.2 billion in loans. Larger states could generate much more.
We have been trapped in an austere neo-liberal economic model in which the only alternatives are to slash services, raise taxes, and sell off public assets, all in a futile attempt to “balance the budget” in a shrinking economy. We need to start thinking outside the box. We can choose prosperity, and public banks are a key tool for achieving that end. (WHAT A PUBLIC BANK COULD MEAN FOR CALIFORNIA; By Ellen Brown; ThePeoplesVoice.org; May 20th, 2011)
If you have read down this far, I have a question. Did anyone notice Brown attached California’s needs to North Dakota’s paradigm? There was a lot of talk of a deposit based banking paradigm as in North Dakota. Also Brown connects everything from tax revenue to State government bureaucracy being tied to the bank.
Here is the thing I noticed though. Brown’s delight of tying all California revenue through a State-owned bank seems to lead to the possibility of moving budgetary money around to meet State needs covered by the State-owned deposits. Now I know in a perfect world with the revenue flying in on all cylinders that this would not be a big deal to move bank deposits or borrowing against bank deposits to shore up a State need to be a big deal. BUT what would happen if the borrowing on deposits to shore-up say social programs began to exceed the deposits? Keep in mind the North Dakota paradigm did not eliminate private enterprise banks but indeed worked with partner situations with the private banks. Also keep in mind the BND is not a Federally insured bank. The bank deposits are insured by the State of North Dakota.
With this in mind private banks play a huge role in California as opposed to North Dakota. California has been in the red so long that there might be a little distrust to place money in a Federally UNINSURED bank. I am thinking deposits in a State-owned bank in California could be just as bad news for the Californian economy if the State-owned banking revolves around California’s huge economy that goes way beyond agriculture and small businesses. I am betting some Governor, State Congress or bureaucrat might be willing to gamble in a less than conservative manner which could backfire.
If there is crisis in State-owned banking I am guessing a State like California would have to implement greater tentacles of Socialism that will indeed make the Bank of North Dakota look like a true Capitalist venture. Then Constitutional issues could arise because I am just unsure how Socialized a State can be outside the U.S. Constitution.
It seems to me that large State economies cannot work out a semi-Socialist/Capitalist success as has happened in North Dakota.
John R. Houk
© February 28, 2011
When the various Tea Party organizations rallied Americans to show grassroots support for less government and less taxes during the 2010 election cycle, the rallies were peaceful even in the midst of the Leftist Democratic Party and the NAACP trying to propagandize Americans that these rallies were congregations of Right Wing racists. If there was any violence in these rallies it was usually at the behest of Leftist sympathizes attempting to disrupt with a bit of disruptive violence.
One example was an African-American Congressman who walked through a crowd of Tea Partiers who were vocally denouncing the Dem Party agenda of which that Congressman was a part of. In a position never to waste a good opportunity that Congressman responded vocally by claiming he was the recipient of racial slurs thus proving the racist nature of Tea Partiers. The problem for Congressman John Lewis is that he was either lying or was so intimidated by the truth of the protest that his imagination ran amok. Subsequent examination of video that showed more than the discomfort of Rep. Lewis demonstrates not one word could be heard saying “nigger” or “faggot” as the Leftist MSM tried to portray as occurring.
Another example of Leftist propaganda occurred at a Rand Paul campaign rally in which many in the crowd were Tea Partiers. The incident involved Lauren Valle of Moveon.org aggressively penetrating guards and stuck a sign inside the window of a car that then candidate Paul had just entered. Now do you think guards and supporters are going to react to a person aggressively shoving something into a car inhabited by a candidate that was supposed to have security protection? The obvious perception would be to neutralize the person forcefully in case there was an assassination attempt, right? Well that is exactly what happened. Valle was tackled to the ground in no uncertain terms. An overzealous Paul supporter went on overkill and stomped on Valle’s head. Everything that happened in this incident was due to the aggressive nature of Lauren Valle. The guy that put the boot to her head was a volunteer supporter whose first reaction was to neutralize a possible attacker. It is a good idea to neutralize first and ask questions later when the threat could have easily have been an assassination attempt as much as it could have been a Left loon confrontation by a woman in disguise. The head stomping would have been the act of a hero if Valle was an assassin. Valle was a Leftist loon and so Profitt’s choice of neutralization was wrong, but tossing a possible threat to the ground was not wrong.
The point of these two examples is that there is a vast difference in the behavior of Leftist protests and Tea Party protests. The Left incites violence and the Tea Party incites change. That change was realized at the 2010 polls in which a bunch of Left Wing Dems lost their jobs. The Dems lost their jobs not via a violent overthrow. Those Dems lost their jobs by voters giving the boot to those taking America in the wrong direction.
Not long ago Democrat Michael Capuano uttered this stunning phrase in a pro-Union speech:
“Every once in a while you have to get out in the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”
Apparently such a green light to pro-union protesters was taken to heart. Union protesters have been violently threatening and accosting detractors and journalists that might not agree with the union protest against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to rein in the State budget.
… he proposed a budget-repair bill that would break the grip of labor interests in a capital that has long been dominated by them. Facing a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years, he argues that public workers should contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries toward their pensions and pay 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums. Most controversial is his plan to eliminate collective bargaining for nearly all state employees.” (Gov. Scott Walker: No Stranger to Budget Battles; Robert Costa; National Review;
The budget repair bill will balance the budget and lay the foundation for a long-term sustainable budget through several measures without raising taxes, raiding segregated funds, or using accounting gimmicks.
First, it will require state employees to pay about 5.8% toward their pension (about the private sector national average) and about 12% of their healthcare benefits (about half the private sector national average). These changes will help the state save $30 million in the last three months of the current fiscal year.
“It’s fair to ask public employees to make a pension payment of just over 5%, which is about the national average, and a premium payment of 12%, which is about half of the national average,” said Governor Walker.
The budget repair will also restructure the state debt, lowering the state’s interest rate, saving the state $165 million.
These changes will help the state fulfill its Medicaid spending on needy families of about $170 million; funding that the previous administration did not have in its budget. It will also allow the state to spend an additional $21 million in the Department of Corrections.
Additionally, the budget repair bill gives state and local governments the tools to manage spending reductions through changing some provisions of the state’s collective bargaining laws.
The state’s civil service system, among the strongest in the country, would remain in place. State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures. Local police, fire and state patrol would be exempted from the changes. Other reforms will include state and local governments not collecting union dues, annual certification will be required in a secret ballot, and any employee can opt out of paying union dues. (Emphasis is mine)
Check out the part I emphasized. There is no termination of collective bargaining for wages. Governor Walker wants to end collective bargaining on non-wage benefits. Also the idea of an annual union certification will hold some accountability of union bosses to union members. If union members are dissatisfied with the service of their union mandated annual certification is leverage for union members to have their desires better represented by union bosses. Friends this is balance. Frankly it is unfortunate the mandated union reform is not also extended into private industry. Governor’s plan only affects State employees.
And yet, union bosses have mobilized members and the typical propaganda scum of the MSM to convince pro-union people they are receiving a raw deal rather than a fair deal. Many of these union protestors are becoming violent. The idea of peaceful protest is eschewed. Frankly I sense a successful budget repair by the Governor could result in the numbskull action of union bosses promoting rioting. Of course rioting will lead to violence and violence leads to physical harm as well as property damage.
Get a clue Leftists and Unionists!