ex•tor•tion [ik-stawr-shuh n] –noun
1. An act or instance of extorting.
2. The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.
3. Oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. Anything extorted.

Early in our industrial infancy, the cheapest labor was often recent immigrants, indentured for their trip from the old world. Like many nubies, they were mocked as unsophisticated or slow witted by some in pop culture for their low socio-economic standing and lack of understanding of local norms. They were employed at a slower rate than assimilated workers. Unscrupulous business owners, and I might add, political parties, took unfair advantage of their ignorance. Workers were hired under misleading arrangements specifically worded to entice these workers into unfair contracts. The workers did what all workers in a free market do when treated dishonestly, the walked out. This wiped the gotcha-smile right off the bosses faces. The bosses could not infringe upon one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One of the principles essential to the right to pursue happiness is the ability to keep the fruits of one’s pursuits, the protection of private property. The bosses wanted to get the production from the worker, and keep much of the remuneration as well.

To infringe upon this right required collusion with government.

Fraudulent employers got bigger, helped elect business friendly politicians who then enacted laws allowing employment contract skippers to be arrested and to allow local police to enforce the terms of the contracts. Railroads, coal mines, steel, were industries notorious for taking advantage of workers, enforced with the help of local and state police. They paid in script only accepted at the over priced company store. This is the part of the story we have all heard. The employees banded together and stopped working. Without production, the bosses could not buy the government they needed to keep the employees working. Such collusion only works to the advantage of the privileged few. We elect our government and the majority of Americans do not appreciate fraud and corruption, even now. Once the lights were turned on, the roaches scurried.

For most of the rest of our country’s history, unions could strike and business owners could fold. Pay and benefits were negotiated somewhere in the middle. All agreements were subject to either party simply walking away, at least temporarily. If the business folded, no amount of picketing would create money from thin air. If the employees walked, no amount of retained profit would produce. Soon equilibrium was reached whereby the employees felt favorably compensated, the business owner had labor he could count on and little changed year to year. Employees questioned the relevancy of the unions and hesitated to pay the dues for no change year to year. But politicians, as they are prone to do, followed the politically expedient source of money and grew to be on the “side” of unions, for a price. The unions used the means at their disposal to enact favorable legislation of their own. So was born the closed shop. If you wanted a job in a union shop, you had to join the union, often before applying for the job. Anyone who was not pro-union would not be allowed to join and therefore could not get the job. Friends and family were the only ones allowed to join and dissention in union matters was scarce. Even with this arrangement, employees were less and less interested in joining unions and paying the extorted dues. Non-union shops could pay less and charge less and fire people more easily, at the same time, they hired more easily and sometimes the take home pay was higher as no one was supporting a union infrastructure. This was especially true for other countries. Soon, a new generation of workers grew up only hearing stories of the labor movement. Their union loyalty faded as the union looked less and less like the savior of mistreated employees, and more and more like the bloated bureaucracies that had enslaved their grandfathers. Unions needed a better way of growing members in order to survive.

One option, the hard way, was to insist on minimum standards for members for training, ethics, dependability, etc. They could insist on eliminating poor performers from their ranks. This would give unions a reputation for the best employees for the money and guarantee a steady supply of employees wanting to join and a steady supply of employers wanting to hire them. The downside, the dues would have to be really low to keep newly employed members from leaving once they got the job. And, there is the downside of having to produce something in return for the dues after years of getting closed shop dues for relatively little. But if they could find another option, a new steel industry or a new coal industry, where the businesses hardly had any competition for employees, it would be much easier. Such a business would be staffed by employees with little choice but to work for the union. What would be even better is if they could do so in an industry with considerable profit margin from which to negotiate. The search was on for an industry with unlimited funds, relatively high tolerance of favoritism and nepotism, and a favorable political climate.

The perfect industry exists. However it was illegal to organize until the late 1950’s. Then a New York City mayor wanted to secure a few city worker votes and the public sector union was born. Democrat politicians across the country rushed to add public sector union members to their roster of campaign contributors. The unions could push the entitlement form of pay and benefits, and get the government to pull their closed shop union dues straight from the employee’s paychecks. The union could then use those dues to help elect pro-union politicians with which to negotiate those entitlements. The position normally held by the business that could go out of business was now filled by the tax payer. The tax paying public can not cease to exist due to unprofitable employment arrangements. Moreover, the union employee gets to vote for their representative on the government side of the table, same as any other tax payer. They then also get to send a second negotiator on the union side. The first places to adopt such laws were those states where a large portion of the state’s employees worked for big, heavy industries which were already union supporters. The rust belt fell first along with steel and dockworkers heavy states. More would follow as right-to-work states had uprisings to get the “right” to extort higher pay from their taxpayers as well. All went as planned, at first.

The arrangement in Wisconsin threatens the golden egg laying goose for two simple reasons: Greed and incompetence. Pay is peanuts; the big money is in pensions. A public sector worker can work for 30 years as a teacher, from 25 to 55 years old, retire with a pension, live to be 85 years old, and draw more in pension in those 30 years than they were paid to actually work 30 years. Each time a teacher in Wisconsin retires, the cost of their replacement is double, one for the replacement, one for the pensioner. In a private sector business, where pensions have long gone the way of the dinosaur, the money for the pension would be set aside each year the teacher worked. The cost would be obvious as the $52,000 teacher also had $52,000 set aside for her pension in hopes that she only lived 30 years following retirement. Retired teachers who live to be 90 could see 5 years when the cost is triple. The number of retirees, who do so, increases every generation, as does the base pay, all of which is renegotiated each year. The public sector union employee in Wisconsin grew up seeing their parents get this pension, without paying into it themselves, and now expect the same. They see it as a right. They feel entitled. Public sector pay and benefits outweigh the private sector employee packages from which the public sector pensions are paid, and the private sector employee also paid for a significant portion of their own retirement. Private sector pensions are all but nonexistent because no one can predict how long a new 25 year old employee will live after retirement. No business decision can be made 30 years in advance with any security. Private sector employees must live off of the retirement they helped pay for as well as continuing to pay for the public sector pension for a retiree who did not. The cost of a public sector union employee far exceeds that of the private sector employee’s pay and benefits. Which would be OK, if the electorate feels they are getting their money’s worth. The downside of favoritism and nepotism in an environment of employees motivated by belief in entitlement to the job, is that performance will always be lackluster at best, and never approach the performance where continued employment and promotion require it. Indeed, the union can be counted on to talk higher performers into slowing down or performing less to prevent bringing undue attention to the overall lackluster performance. But the internet allows parents to realize that their students are more likely than other similar students to perform poorly, despite spending much more per capita on education. As teacher pay increased, public school student performance decreased. We understand child learning better now than in previous generations, we have computers and other teaching tools available to us like never before, and a large portion of Wisconsin public school 8th graders cannot read proficiently.

But the death knell for the public sector unions in Wisconsin and the rest of the U. S. sounded when they took a stand on the ability to renegotiate their position, on the promise of accepting pay and benefit cuts now. They got the nation’s attention when they stated flatly, that cutting pay and benefits for union members instead of raising taxes on everyone was solving a money mismanagement problem on the backs of the unions.

Really? The collective scowl from the country was palpable.

Although they were correct about the mismanagement, it was at the hands of the union-elected miss-managers. Taxes had already been raised 60% to pay for the existing packages as businesses left the state. Fewer students to educate could not be accepted as a sound reason to lay off unneeded teachers. The teacher’s union wants everyone to pay even higher taxes, following an election upset run and won on the promise of cutting spending and taxes,  The union promises that union members will take a small hit now, so long as they get the opportunity to negotiate themselves raises and increases in the future, (when they can get more union friendly politicians elected). What I heard was, “We will keep the roaches out of the kitchen so long as the light is on.” Such negotiations in the past have often been accompanied with back pay for those cut years. In other words, “Write us an IOU for the “pay cuts” we are borrowing from the next generation of workers we are under-educating, or we will shut down the underperforming school system we took an oath not to abandon. Really, we promise.” To put it in terms some of you might appreciate, they said, “Nice school system you have here. Be a shame if something bad were to happen to it. A threat?!! Heavens no, it is illegal for teachers in Wisconsin to strike! I’m just sayin’ if something were to happen, organically without our community organizers community-organizing it . . .”

We are at a crossroads in this country on so many levels, but this is ground zero for the entitlement culture war. (Wisconsin is also seen by many as the beginning, ground zero, for union solidarity of past unions. I find this ironic, but perhaps fitting that the attempt to skew the political processes in favor of the privileged few, on the backs of the many, would be exposed there and defeated there.) If Wisconsin folds, so folds the country.

I call for the formation of a new union, one representing the over 80% of all workers who are not currently represented. I suggest that membership be open to all taxpayers not belonging to a union and that membership can be begun and ended year by year, with a prorated refund of dues anytime a politician you don’t want to support is supported. I suggest that we vote ourselves the “right” to bargain and the “right” to have union members pay OUR retirement and healthcare. In fairness, the unions will likely loose the ability to negotiate pension and healthcare soon either way. Perhaps we should only reserve the one right we truly do have; the right to the pursuit of happiness; the right to keep our property. I suggest we organize a taxpayers union and strike to end the extortion of our property on the threat of public employee sickouts. I want the right to strike and put the golden egg laying goose out of the egg laying business. I want to strike to end the practice of borrowing from our children without their informed consent, to send from balanced-budget/right-to-work states like Virginia, to states like Wisconsin.

We can survive without public sector unions. They cannot survive without us.

Eventually, the unions put up candidates of their own for government positions and the practice of government enforcement of unfair labor practices was replaced with regulatory protections against them. However, just as business used this influence to their advantage, unions worked to enact legislation favorable to themselves through their elected officials. Eventually, all truly unfair business/employment practices were eliminated by legislation. Unions were no longer relevant in matters of fairness. To remain relevant, they negotiated from a position of solidarity for better than fair pay and benefits. Pay to union employees rose above non-union pay and unions could not persist. Businesses resisted hiring union employees, knowing pay and benefits would be extorted above market price. In some areas of the country, unions were influential enough to successfully support a sufficient number of elected officials to make it legal to force businesses of a certain size to only hire union employees. The concept of a closed shop was born. Join the union, or don’t bother applying for a job. Favoritism and nepotism replaced merit and production.

Businesses that could not survive the new burdens of employee strikes and unfair legislation, did not survive. They either moved to more business friendly environments following the paths of looms past, or businesses formed by others in such friendlier locals put them out of business. This cycle of business start up, unionization of the successful ones, and their eventual demise continued until all but the large industrial employers with factories and plants too large to move easily were gone. Now, a business opens in a union state and makes a profit long enough to get the attention of a union. The union convinces the employees that they deserve a larger portion of the difference between their current pay, and the profit retained by the owner, real or imagined. This is an easy sell in union states as it is common knowledge in such states that union jobs can pay several times what non-union work pays. The owner is told that the union will supply well trained employees and the increased pay will be an advantage as the unions will not tolerate non-union shops which might open to compete with the union shop. This is an easy sell as well, since the owners often grew up in the union rich society of the union state. The owner tolerates the union and can sometimes negotiate help from the union elected government officials in the form of competition limiting regulation in return for better pay and benefits for the employees. Over time, the negotiated arrangement is re-visited and changes in favor of the employees creep in. Rarely does an economically weak company gain relief with newly negotiated employee contracts, as the union continually attempts to get as much of the profits for employees and the union as is possible, while threatening to interfere with commerce if any reduction is requested. Often, concessions in good economic periods render the business unprofitable in another. High labor costs in high skill, labor intensive fields encourage automation in competitors where such automation would prove too costly without the union bolstered pay scales. Eventually, unionized industries fail more often in union states and less often in non-union states or countries. Unions fail and disappear in direct relation to the death of the host organism they helped starve. As profits shrink in favor of high pay, even the large industrial employers are replaced by foreign competitors. Unions could have educated and trained their members to be more competitive than non-union workers, instead they worked for conditions where they would not have to compete.

There is one industry however, which can never be outsourced. There is one industry which has almost no connection between the existence of the employer and the financial feasibility of the employee pay package. There is one industry where competition for survival has no connection to the production of the workers. This industry is government. Union organized public employees can pay dues to support the election of union compliant officials, and then “negotiate” a “fair” pay and benefits package with those same officials. Since unfair business practices or unfair pay and benefits are no longer left to fight, the union must fabricate such in order to remain relevant. This is exactly what happened in Wisconsin. The “union busting” legislation proposed in the Wisconsin legislature, if passed, would only make Wisconsin state teachers’ bargaining abilities equal to those for unionized Federal employees. The proposed legislation would not however bring the teacher’s union employee’s pension or health insurance contributions in line with either non-union Wisconsin residents or in many cases, other union employees. So why would the unions and their members take an extremely hard stance on an incremental loss in abilities which are out of line with most other employees’ abilities? They are not fighting for safe working conditions. They are fighting to be able to re-negotiate when the electoral pendulum swings back in their favor and they once again choose the government negotiator. They are fighting to continue to negotiate from both sides of the table. They are trying to make the voters, their employers, regret challenging the status quo.

The unions have drawn the line in the sand. The risk is that voters will not regret challenging the unions, but regret allowing them to exist at all. If the proposed Wisconsin legislation passes, I believe this will be the first time that public sector employee unions have lost any significant gains for their employees. There have been some temporary decreases in benefits, or temporary freezes on pay raises, or temporary freezes in hiring. I assert that this is the first permanent setback in the slow progression of pay and benefit improvements. I assert that this is the first setback that will not be re-negotiated with the elected official of their construction. If this legislation passes, the unions will have to negotiate in the open venue of public elections directly with their employer, the voters, instead of behind closed doors with someone who owes them for their job. They will have to stand in the public square and convince them that union members are entitled to pay raises when everyone else is taking cuts. They will have to convince the public that higher union pay will lead to better educated students, . . . this time. They will have to convince the voting public that tax increases best balance a bloated education budget, coincident with rising teacher pay. If the proposed legislation passes it could indicate a realization by the public that unions are obsolete, to be replaced by automation or at least, lower paid labor. I first suspected they recognize this too when I noticed the unprecedented pressure being brought to bare on Madison Wisconsin by the union friendly, union elected power players outside of Wisconsin. The unions are calling in their chips and the union elected officials are doing what they promised to do, knowing this will not go unnoticed by the voting public. President Obama publically put his support behind the unions. I assert that he does this as a knee jerk reaction resulting from his coming through the union rich political machinery of Chicago somewhat oblivious that his actions caused most of the rest of the country to pause at their own jobs and look up to see what he has done. The DNC sent their chairman, Tim Kaine to help with organizing protests, knowing(?) the people in the right to work state of Virginia will not understand his support for a union fight against negotiating directly with the tax payer over tax payer supplied pensions, and may not vote him into office again. President Obama put his left-over campaign resources into the fight via his campaign organization, Organizing for America. Solidarity. President Obama’s oath is to the Constitution. He is an employee of the very tax payers he has sided against. It seems lost on him that the fact he cannot represent “US” and “THEM” at the same time and that he chose to move to this side of the table. It seems lost on him that the fact the taxpayers have realized this is the very basis for the November upset in Wisconsin, and the new support for union restraint there. Is it more likely that such support for a union is because teachers are barely being fairly compensated in union negotiated contracts, or that the union contracts are so lucrative that the union members will pay dearly to keep them?

Consider this: If the school system took bids for teaching jobs, union and otherwise, would the low bids from out of work teachers be the same as the current teacher pay? Or, could current teachers be replaced from the free market for a price much lower?

So long as there are out of work teachers, the pay is too high. We expect the highest moral character in our teachers. We want them to be attracted to teaching because of a heartfelt desire to be in the profession. We want teachers driven with a desire to encourage such character in our children through example. What I see in Madison are teachers apparently attracted to teaching by a strong union, lying to their employers the taxpayers, saying they are sick and cannot work. I see them doing so in public, in front of their students, in front of an electorate not stupid enough to believe them. I see them doing so, knowing that no one believes the obvious lie, yet they persist. I see doctors lying on camera, writing notes to the very teachers who would not accept a bogus doctor’s note from their students. I see the kind of lying and cheating that money buys. I see teachers claiming that an education is a right while interfering with said education. I see them causing a stop to education activities and claiming without the union, education of the children will cease. I see teachers willing to teach children that lying for money is acceptable. I see teachers deliberately confusing the difference between rights and privileges, for their personal monetary gain. I see teachers using school yard bully tactics against legitimately elected officials with whom they disagree, for the purpose of interfering with the sworn duties of teacher and Congressman alike. I am not alone when I plainly see what an entrenched union will do when challenged.

What the union members do not realize is that much of the country is watching. Most of us did not grow up believing that such poor behavior is acceptable in the protection of the union interest. What they do not realize is how disgusted I am with the thought of my personal friends who are teachers, being forced to support and pay dues to such an organization as a condition of their being allowed to teach my children. I find it particularly unsavory that one of my teacher friends would be required to pay to support the election of a particular candidate as a condition of employment. I am not alone. The line has been drawn. Tremendous force is being applied in Madison in the protection of the unions. I find it a little ironic that their “fight for the freedom to negotiate” as unions could lead to Wisconsin’s freedom from them. All that stands between union survival and union oblivion is freedom to work without paying the union for the privilege. Simply allowing a teacher to work as a non-union teacher for the same pay as a union teacher will mark the end of teacher’s unions. The teacher’s union could have simply allowed this proposed bill to pass, quietly, then wait a couple of years and have the union supported Congress that would one day return, “fix it,” and get back to negotiating ever increasing benefits. Instead, they want to end challenges to public employee unions by their employers, and punish those who dare to do so. I wholeheartedly hope they succeed in doing just that. I hope that freedom ends this debate once and for all. What a fitting place for the progressive movement to have gained an early foothold, and ultimately the place where it shot itself in the foot, marking the end of the belief in the long term sustainability of socialist tenants. What a fitting end to public sector union conflict-of-interest, at the hands of voter solidarity.

I think the answer to the first one is simple. No, it is not the answer Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator gave. Her reason was the agreed upon, previously released response, the evidence is overwhelming, the EPA is obligated to do something about it. My answer is that carbon is the most dangerous “pollutant” left to regulate, and public opinion has not swayed to the liking of the warming lobby, Congress has refused to pass Cap & Trade because the electorate kicks those Congressmen who threaten to do so, out of office. Just like the cleanup of the Gulf Coast beaches, lots of people are needed early on. As the worst of it is cleaned, fewer people are needed until eventually, only a few are “needed” to check out reports of places that are not cleaned. The EPA, like all government agencies, will not send the early cleaners home, and their ranks continue to grow. Their budget grew 35% since President Obama took office. There are too many people. They are obligated to clean something up. The EPA only remains relevant so long as there is an environmental pollutant not being cleaned up.

The second is simple as well, if you simply apply poli-logic, the logical assessment of a policy’s outcome. The EPA asserts it is obligated to regulate carbon, for the purpose of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, for the purpose of relieving the earth’s fever. Assume for a second that the earth has Al Gore’s fever, and that reducing carbon will accomplish this cooling. The question is reduced to the simple form: Will carbon in the atmosphere be reduced as a result of EPA limits on it? I suggest it will not. Simply, global warming suggests a global phenomenon. The air we clean (or don’t pollute) circles the globe. The EPA does not. When it costs too much to operate a factory here, because the electricity costs too much, the factory will move to China, or close and be replaced by one opened there. The Chinese electrical generation is not as clean as ours was then the EPA was formed, much less EPA obligation “clean.” The end result is more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now, and more of other pollutants like sulfur that are all but eliminated in U.S. electricity production. If the EPA, or anyone for that matter, wants to reduce air pollution, they should do everything possible to bring as much industry to the U.S. as possible. The dirtier, the better.

While we are at it, lets look at another assumption that must be true in order for the EPA assertions to hold water, ( . . . um . . . air?), specifically that the science is settled. I can remember when floppy drives came on the scene. I can remember the news talking about global cooling in the ‘70’s and the impending next ice age. One thing I have noticed, scientists talk about the current understanding, or the current theories, not settled science. If Lisa Jackson had testified that tests have produced results consistent with the current theories, raising confidence that the theories accurately describe the natural phenomenon, I could check her assertion. I could concur, or at least find people who had done so and concurred. If she had said what scientists say, that the theory is not perfect and new refinements are being discovered each time the tests are repeated, I would have more respect for her opinion. But she did not. She said what politicians say, the subject is settled, because the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act could allow the EPA to ignore public will and the will of Congress and act on their beliefs as apposed to mine. To paraphrase one comment made during the hearing: The Supreme Court said the Clean Air Act COULD be used to regulate airborne carbon, the EPA staff thinks it SHOULD be so used, the Congress will decide if it WILL be so used.

Scientists do not claim to know all of the consequences of a political scheme and would generally not offer what should be, one would simply state what is known, and what the predicted outcome will be. A scientist knows that she will one day be proven wrong concerning some “settled” scientific truth, and would not want to be held responsible for spending billions of dollars and sending away millions of jobs and increasing the pollution in the air. So even if Lisa Jackson is not the climate activist she seems, and is correct in her assertion about the science, how long are we going to allow the EPA to increase the carbon in the atmosphere via China et. al.?

The EPA must be stopped to save the planet!!

If I substitute President Obama for President Mubarak, how different is the story. Does President Obama demonize revenue producing business as President Mubarak does the gift giving west, all the time relying on such funds to pay for his endeavors? Did President Obama not promise better government but deliver more government? Are the Tea Party attendees much different than the protesters in Cairo, simply without the violence? Would President Obama have attempted to physically shut down the news media and internet if such were within his power? I assert that he certainly tried to marginalize those portions of both which questioned him in the hopes that we would effectively do so. We have net neutrality, whatever that will turn out to be.  Proposals for reviving the fairness doctrine and giving the President an internet cutoff switch are ever in the Washington D.C. vernacular.

We are different from the Egyptian people in so many ways, mostly differentiating our heritage from the vision President Obama has for America. Our press will always be free as long as any of us are. We will be free to express ourselves to each other without fear of government prosecution so long as any act is without such fear. But when I saw President Mubarak arrogantly offering a 15% raise to government employees who had been told for years that the public coffers were dry, I could remember the self admitted “amused” President Obama smirking about Tea Party protests, “You would think they should be saying Thank You,” to Democrat-fundraiser applause.

Are we different from Egypt? Yes vastly. But will these differences prevail or will the vision President Obama has for us? Will we remain the shining example of what free people can do and lead Egypt by example to their new future? Or will we follow them as every socialized society before us, into the cycle of promise, tax, oppress, and collapse? We get to decide. Will we be content with borrowing a 15% raise from our kids and simply say, “Thank you President Obama”? Time will tell, but I like the odds, given the increasing size of the crowds in the streets during Tea Parties.

Oops:  In discussions about the situation in the middle east, my friends and I speculated about the state of Egypt and what affect other conditions in other countries would have if they coincided with the unrest in Cairo.  One such country that received considerable amounts of our time was Turkey.  I prepared this post well after midnight the first night, and proof read it the second and decided instead of using a generic country in the middle east, I would use the events in Egypt specifically.  I opened the document and replaced the generic language with Turkey and Turkish, instead of Egypt and Egyptian.  Those of you who know me, probably simply read in the proper language as you read, the rest of you now have a glimpse into the hell endured by the first group.  You both have my sincerest apologies.

I heard an exasperated congressman say that people on unemployment spend 100% of the money they get in the economy, and therefore this is the best place money could be spent to stimulate growth, certainly better than extending tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. (For the record, I think it is better than building interstate off ramps to nowhere as individuals can make decisions about how to spend the unemployment benefit.) On the surface, this wealth redistribution argument sounds great, put money in the hands of people eager to spend it, instead of letting the wealthy hoard it, right? The devil is in the details. What they are suggesting is that setting money aside while paying someone to collect the tax and review the tax return, pay someone to account for it, pay someone to distribute it to the relevant agency, pay someone to distribute it to the state employment agencies, pay them to account for it, pay them to distribute it to relevant case account, and pay to distribute it to people who are not working, puts more people to work than the high income earner spending it themselves, or investing it or anything else they might do with it. The argument is that paying people to manage a government program produces more wealth than turning raw materials into finished products.

What’s my problem with this? I have a problem with the assumptions insinuated within the premise that the government pulling leaky buckets buckets of water from one end of the economy pool and dumping them in the other somehow lowers the level on one end and raises the level on the other. (Consider they are sucking water from the water-multiplying end of the pool.) The first assumption is that high income earners are less efficient at spending money in the economy than low income earners. Second, the assumption that paying for unemployment generates less unemployment. Third, the assumption that giving capital to consumers generates more capital than investing in production generates, so much so that it can cover the interest paid to borrow it. Finally, I take exception with the assumption that individual’s situations can be improved by applying a single solution to the group as a whole.

First, why do high income earners make the big bucks? Pick a reason. Half of you will say something like tenure, or favoritism, or just plain luck. Although the luck argument probably exists, it cannot be sustained, Chelsea Clinton asside; indeed none of them can, without one truth. Sustained employment exists when an employee produces more than they cost the employer for a sustained length of time. A private endeavor goes out of business if they pay more than they earn. The simple truth is that high income earners produce higher returns on their employer’s pay investment in them than does someone doing a minimum wage job could make for them. Otherwise, there would be no sustained high income earners. When faced with the decision of whether to hire a $300,000 employee or 2 employees making $150,000, the decision comes down to which situation makes it more likely that the company will survive. In short, that option which produces the most money in return. Raise the cost of having a $300,000 employee, via tax increases on those making more than $250,000, and you skew the decision slightly and get fewer $300,000 employees. In some cases, that means hiring more $150,000 employees which is good for out of work $150,000 employees. In some cases, the $150,000 option is not profitable. (The $300,000 employee may have been more profitable than the lower paid option by an amount which straddles the break even point.) Those businesses will stop conducting business, or move this business to another country to survive, firing all other American employees in both cases. This produces a net decrease in all jobs at all income levels, clustered near the tax break level of $250,000.

My next problem is with the idea that paying people to sit at home, or unsuccessfully look for work, keeps their money going in the economy even though they are not producing anything. Remember the bucketing of the pool water idea? Taking money out of the economy, or promising to do so by borrowing it, and then putting it back via the hands of entitlement recipients, does not create anything. Simply, there is no return on the investment. Just like friction in an engine, there are parasitic losses in doing this, and there is a time lag between when the taxes are known, and the payments put them back in circulation. Also, when you increase the cost of some activity, you get less of it, when you lower the cost of some activity, you get more of it. We tax tobacco and subsidize GM’s Volt with this conviction. Raising the cost of employing people, via taxes or future taxes via borrowing, reduces hiring, and eliminates the marginal businesses from the American economy. The marginal companies go under, or move away to survive, taking the remaining jobs with them. Concurrently, when you make it less costly to be unemployed, you get less effort to change that condition by the only person who can affect it, the unemployed. Of course some take any job as soon as they can, and some feel like they hit the lottery and would not take a high paying job until all the “free” money stops. Those people who did not need to work, or who were barely breaking even after paying the costs of getting to work and dressing for work, will stay home and take the unemployment payment. They are not immoral, in my opinion, they can simply add. Why get up each morning, come up with gas money ahead of the paycheck, and give up your day to spend time on the road, hire daycare, and loose an 8 hour day, when you can stay home for anything in the ball park of the same net income? Shame you say? Perhaps, but some of those working out of a feeling of obligation, not need, such as those whose spouses are able to pay the essential family expenses, will not work with the “unemployed” badge of honor shielding them from feeling shame. Encourage businesses to not hire people with promises of increased unemployment taxes while encouraging people to put off searching for a job with promises of benefit extensions, increases unemployment. Do a little research and see just how close to the end of unemployment payments people get, ON AVERAGE, when they miraculously find an acceptable lower paying job. People turn down lower paying jobs than they lost in hopes of finding a higher paying job than exists in their market, for as long as they are being paid to do so. When you make future job creation cost more, and current joblessness cost less, you get higher current unemployment and higher future unemployment in a downward spiral.

The next is one of my favorite pro-government-program arguments to dispute: the idea that low income people spend their money in such a way which creates more jobs than more affluent spenders do. In other words, 5 people who only make $20,000 a year do more to create jobs than a single person making $100,000 does. Ask yourself this, is a “poor” person more likely to buy things that are mass produced by machines, (pop tarts), or custom things that are handmade, (omelets)? Is a “rich” person more likely to buy cheaply produced food from a factory, (tater tots for home), or hire local kitchen staff to prepare more labor intensive, expensive food, (baked potato in a restaurant)? Come on, be honest. “Poor” people buy flour and make bread; “rich” people buy bread, and pay the baker. The affluent also invest in bakeries and bakery company stock. Another obvious question, which is more likely to have cash stashed in a shoebox under the bed, and which is more likely to have it in a bank account or invested in stocks? In other words, in preparation for the proverbial rainy day, who is more likely to have their available money in the economy and which is more likely to have it hoarded? Know anyone who thinks they will start saving and investing once they make a little more money? That is me. I can’t wait to make enough to hoard, all the while flexing my spending up and down to match my income. I doubt that this is a “poor only” phenomenon. I suspect that promising future tax increases by borrowing against future taxes, actually encourages the higher earners to hoard their money instead of spending it or investing and paying capital gains. Those who barely think now’s the time to invest, will switch over to the buy-gold-and-hoard side, removing their money from the economy. This money stays out of the economy until the capital gains tax rate is low enough. It has to be low enough to pay the double tax of cashing in gold and paying the tax, and investing in stocks and paying the tax again each year. Even if gold goes down, but by a lower percentage than the tax, it may not be sold. Which do you think makes gold rise, government spending or government frugality? See the catch 22 of raising taxes on the rich to “create or save” jobs?

The last assumption is at the core of the government spending v.s. private spending debate. The idea is that everyone on unemployment gets extended payments because someone will have a worse time if they don’t. My belief is that the national government should steer the national efforts, those which will benefit the most people, not those that will benefit any single person. Those who want to raise unemployment benefits agree with me, otherwise they would not suggest we extend every unemployed person’s benefit time. If they wanted to help individual situations, they would encourage and empower the people familiar with the individual. At a minimum they would leave the money in the states to pay out and eliminate several middle men. They would suggest local control of unemployment programs instead of single-location control from Washington DC. I question whether votes for extension is about helping a person or about looking like they want to help. Helping people can get you re-elected, so can looking like you are, and the two can only be contrasted in light of fact and principle and rejection of feelings and emotion. We will limit job growth for everyone via the promise of high taxes to cover debt service which produces nothing. We are willing to allow millions of new workers to suffer without a job, in order to believe that one previously employed person will not suffer having lost one. Why is a new employment ready person not important but one who held an over paid position, no longer needed, worthy of borrowing money from the Chinese?

More philosophically, consider this story. A man has $20 and stops at an intersection with 5 men sitting next to, “Will-work-4-food” signs. He rolls down his window and gives each $4. A dozen people driving by notice this act and applaud it. The 5 men buy burgers and eat. Next day, another man, also with $20, stops and asks if any are truly willing to go home with him and help him rake his leaves. 3 stand up and get in the car. He goes home with $20 worth of groceries and rakes leaves. A dozen neighbors notice and applaud the second man. The second man and the workers eat their share of the groceries, the three men remaining at the intersection get nothing.

The next day, both men collide with each other and die and can no longer offer up $20. Now that there is no longer either man to offer help, which dozen applauders is more likely to respond to signs of Will-work-4-food? Which of the men are more credible in the argument that they would work for food for what work there exists? In other words, which situation actually gave them opportunity to improve their lives and which situation actually encouraged others to employ the men? Most of us would agree that it is better to make a man a fisherman than to simply feed him fish.

So how can we claim to produce more fish when the fisherman supplies a government fish collector to give non-fishermen free fish?

Would you expect one or more of the 5 to show up the next day with a stuffed animal, because they did not like doing without? Do you think that some of the kids would offer their extra stuffed animal to classmates with none? I would. I would expect one or two of the 5 who simply forgot, or didn’t take the request seriously or whatever would remember the next day. That leaves 3 who did not bring a stuffed animal because they could not, for whatever reason. I would expect some with stuffed animals to share with those who do not have a stuffed animal. I have a son who routinely shares his most prized treats with others around him. Some of those with one stuffed animal would bring in another the next day, and some would do so specifically to share with their classmates.

Imagine however if the teacher felt sorry for the 5 students without a stuffed animal and assumed they did not bring one in because they did not have the opportunity at home. Imagine that she wants to keep from embarrassing those without stuffed animals by allowing them to play without a stuffed animal or to be at the mercy of the charity of those students with multiple stuffed animals. Imagine that with good intention, she collects the “extra” stuffed animals and distributes them to the students without one. Everyone has a stuffed animal. Perfect, right?

What happens the next day? What happens if this is continued indefinitely into the future?

Will the 2 forgetful students bring in a stuffed animal the next day, or the next? Perhaps, but is there more or less incentive for them to do so than if they had been left alone?

Are the students who had 2 or 3 stuffed animals, and had the “extra” collected more or less likely to bring their 2 or 3 again the next day, to have them collected and redistributed to someone else?

When there are fewer than 30 stuffed animals brought in, is it fair for those who brought one or more in to be the one without any, so that someone who did not bring one in can have one?

Does the student’s reason for no longer bringing in a stuffed animal matter to you when answering this question? For example, does it matter that one student who brought in multiple stuffed animals just days before, only brings in one, and another student does not bring one because she cannot? Would you take the one stuffed animal from the “stingy” student and give it to the one without any choice in the matter?

Would you expect a child to bring their best or favorite stuffed animal in if they saw another student play carelessly with stuffed animals that did not belong to them? Would they attempt to protect their favored stuffed animal from confiscation and damage by leaving it at home in favor of a less appreciated toy?

If the teacher attempted to make the stingy students (who stopped bringing in stuffed animals) feel bad, would they bring in lesser appreciated stuffed animals in larger quantities to keep the count up without risking the better stuffed animals?

Would those who lack the ability (as apposed to those who were forgetful or lazy) be better off in the original situation where everyone felt free to bring their best stuffed animals and share as they felt comfortable?

How does this thinly veiled commentary on free choice relate to current events?

The Associated Press did some homework recently: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-13/126320409066680.xml&storylist=washington et. al.

First, the jobs created were overstated. Imagine that, people competing for government grants painting a rosy picture about how well they had used the money. No surprise, I would expect any program with self reporting to have tremendous reported success.

Second, unemployment did not fair better in areas where a lot of stimulus money was spent relative to where none was spent. Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood disagreed and said there were tens of thousands of jobs created in construction with road and bridge money. After all, how could we spend $400,000 per stimulus job and not hire anyone? They can’t all be raises for current employees reported as jobs saved. Is someone lying or stretching the truth? Perhaps, but both could also be right. Consider this:

Start with the fact that government cannot create wealth; it cannot give anyone something without first confiscating it from someone else. So, where did the jobs come from? In terms of stimulus money, where did the $400,000 dollars come from? More importantly, how many people would your employer have to lay off, to pay up $400,000? After all, that is where the money comes from, the economy. So, we borrow (from the future economy) $400,000 per job, with interest, which will have to be paid back (likely in terms of jobs lost or not created) by that part of the economy left when the new notes come due. We recently borrowed $290 billion to pay the interest on the next few months of loans we already have. This was the raise in the borrowing limit to keep the notes from coming due, presumably until the health care bill can pass.

In addition, the economy has to pay the government to operate, pay people to print/collect/borrow the money, as the government does not create anything and cannot pay for itself. And, the economy must pay for those programs and non-operational expenses of the government, like national health care, should it pass.

So, imagine that you are a potential employer, especially one over seas. Are you more likely to hire people in America, or somewhere else? Keep in mine, an employer has to have the money to pay the employee before hiring and for a long enough time for them to pay for themselves. Are you more likely to bring your best-most-favoritest bear you built at Build-a-Bear to the American kindergarten to be confiscated, redistributed, and played with by careless Americans? Or are you more likely to take your bear to China/India/Ireland/Dubai or any of hundreds of more bear friendly countries?

The problem with socialism, shared prosperity, social justice, economic justice, or whatever statist-collectivist name you want to put on it, is that it demands that human nature be ignored. This type of system is only sustainable (let alone prosperous) if the teacher can go into each student’s house and force them to bring in their bears. In other words, if there is no private bear ownership, if there are no alternatives, if there are no liberties. Such systems are only sustainable at the point of the proverbial gun. Such systems are only enforced, not upheld by informed free people.

Consider how this fits in with the current discussion of the day, where you will be forced to buy a particular government specified health insurance from companies who are forced to provide it to you without considering pre-existing conditions, at a government determined “affordable” rate, payable to Doctors who have been forced to accept this amount. Plans better than the particular “minimum” plan determined by the government (ironically called Cadillac plans, a GM brand owned by the Fed) will be taxed for re-distribution, and Doctors who do not accept the minimum payment or charge cash or provide enough care to be in the top 10% by volume, will be penalized likewise.

Will the currently uninsured be better off with the eventual outcome, or at the mercy of the current system? Will those from other countries continue to bring their medical dollars here, or will they follow the foreign Doctors to the more bear friendly counties?

Taking resources out of the productive areas of the economy, via healthcare, energy, income, or any other taxes and mandates, to re-distribute to non-producing areas, wastes resources in the re-distribution effort, and scares producers from other countries from producing here. Job stimulation spending costs us jobs and re-distributive health care reform hinders the availability of health care. The “stingy” will always have theirs, here or in China. Those who cannot produce always suffer the worse equality-of-outcome from socialism than the outcome from equality-of-opportunity of the free market.

We were promised that Social Security taxes were the property of the person paying them, that they would be available with interest once one retired, and that they could be passed on to one’s heirs should one die before drawing the funds out. How does that resemble what we actually have?

We were promised that if we only gave people who needed it a Welfare hand up, we could assist most in moving back into the working main stream. Now, more people are on Welfare as a percentage of population, the programs were extended to less and less willing to accept a hand up over a hand out, and who find a gap between what the government will pay them to stay home and what working people are paid (after the taxes are paid).

We were promised that the 4 cent per gallon gas tax would only be used to fund highway construction and maintenance. It did just that, until Congress voted to use the funds to support public transportation like Amtrak, city busses, subways, etc. Now, transportation funds are scarce, Amtrak looses $39 per passenger (despite promises that it would be returned to the private sector, at a profit for taxpayers, once it is profitable), and gas taxes are many times the 4 cents per gallon that originally worked.

In Virginia, we were promised that if we allowed a state lottery, the money would be used for public education. Although the amount spent on education does come from the left over lottery money, the left over money equaled the previous budget. The original money was used for other desires. Now, the Virginia lottery participates in the Mega Millions ring that includes several states, the payouts have risen in dollar amounts, the chances of a Virginian winning have gone down, and the school systems are still peddling cans of Virginia Diner peanuts to help supply classrooms.

In June, a District of Columbia Metro crash killed 9 people. Accidents happen, and the causes must be identified and corrected, regardless of who is in charge. In an unrelated line of thinking, the NTSB and others exclaim this as an example of the need for more federal oversight of locally operated systems. They say that there needs to be more uniform rules among States and within localities. Why is this related to the “Trust me, I’m with the government” charade of the previous examples?

The District of Columbia is the exclusive purview of Congress. The DC Metro is completely within federal control. How can the NTSB then claim that the accident indicates the need for more federal oversight? They do so same way that they say that the deficit in highway spending is the result of anything other than Congressional raiding of the funds for other desires. They do so in when talking about the deficit in funds for Social Security after allowing people to get benefits without being citizens, much less contributors to the system. They talk about amendments to the current health care “bills” to forbid the use of Medicare money for other programs, even though the “trust fund” has long been dissolved and the money spent for other desires and Medicare funds do not cover Medicare expenses now, much less other desires.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem.”

Are we more interested in doing the most good with the available resources? Or are we more interested in having equal good for all, even if it is, on average less good?

The “poor” are now a powerful electorate demographic, our children are less educated despite the spending, Amtrak is still bankrupt, people are still “denied” health care, and the list goes on. And the statist wrings his hands and points to these facts as proof that the original takeovers of these things didn’t go far enough.

I ask a simple question: Is there any cause for which our public servants solved the problem in their charge, where the program and its offices were then closed, and where the taxes collected for that purpose stopped?