The "Union" Myth

Now let me get this straight - unions are good, they "rise up" middle class workers - which middle class workers? Unions argue that they need collective bargaining to increase the pay and benefits for workers. The operative word here is "collective". Maybe in the short term that is the case but in the long term unionism breeds mediocrity and individual incentive and lines the pockets of union organizers who spend union money trying to get Democrats elected to protect their power base.

Just as the Democrats (Progressives) are champions of "income redistribution", I contend that unionization is nothing more than redistribution of performance and productivity. Let's look at two hypothetical examples - two high schools:

Let's call the first high school 'Strickland High'. Teachers are non-unionized and they keep their job based strictly on their performance. The better performing teachers get the highest pay.

Let's call the second high school 'Obama High'. The teachers are unionized, they get paid strictly based on their seniority not their performance, and after a few years they get tenure and cannot be fired.

I believe that in any group of teachers, some will be above average, some will be below average, but there will probably be one great teacher and one complete loser. At Strickland High, before long the loser will be fired and replaced with a better teacher and the great teacher will get a raise in pay thus increasing the overall performance and morale at the school.

At Obama High the union will protect all the teachers' jobs, so the "loser" will quickly become a "union man" knowing that his job is secure and his pay and benefits are the same as everyone else with his seniority. But over time a natural thing starts happening at Obama High. The great teacher gets frustrated because she busts her butt trying to be the best teacher, while getting little more recognition than the loser.

In the meantime Strickland High, not satisfied with another one of their low performing teachers, fires him and hires the frustrated "great teacher" from Obama High resulting in further increasing the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High and at the same time lowering the performance of the unionized teachers group at Obama High.

So as this pattern continues over time, the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High continues to improve, the performance of the students continues to improve, and the parents are waiting in line to get their children enrolled. While at the same time the unionized, tenured teachers at Obama High plug along, knowing their job is secure and they cannot be fired. While at the same time, the high performers at Obama High get frustrated and leave to work in an environment like Strickland High where individual performance is rewarded.

Obama High then slowly becomes one of our typical low performing schools with teachers ready to protest if anyone threatens their situation, while the parents of the Obama High students complain and wonder why their kids under-perform, fail in science and math, and can hardly read or write a proper sentence.

Which school system do you want your children to attend?

The Entitlement Bandwagon

OK I confess; I listen to Rush Limbaugh from time to time. The other day the subject was "redistribution of income". And of course this is a pillar in the divide between Democrats and Republicans - if you are obtaining wealth why shouldn't you give some of it back to those less fortunate? And who can argue with that.

But there is a difference between charity to help your fellow human being get through a tough period, or to recover from a disaster, and giving them an on-going "entitlement". It is an indisputable fact that Americans are the most charitable people in the world. But why are any of us, even if we are poor, "entitled" to share in the success of people who by virtue of hard work (and sometimes luck) have obtained a certain amount of wealth. Doesn't the tax system take care of that? Last year almost 50% of Americans paid no federal income tax, while the top earners paid 36% of their income to the federal government - isn't that redistribution of income - after all someone has to pay for our bloated government services.

But for Democrats (and now they call themselves Progressives?), that is not enough.

On this Rush Limbaugh program, a woman called in and she said it was her "right" to receive a portion of the income that "rich" people get; "I live in the hood, and we need to be taken care of". That is a serious problem in this country - "entitlement" vs. short term help when people really need it. We all face obstacles in our lives, and quite often need help until we get our feet on the ground; that is not an entitlement.

But the entitlement mentality has become a disease in this country. No longer do people look for help to get through a tough period - for some it has become a way of life and in many cases for generations.

I believe every human being starts out in life with a desire to "achieve"...it's human nature. That desire to achieve may take many forms - provide a good home for your family, or a successful career, or in some cases driving ambition to achieve great things. The goal doesn't matter, but the desire to achieve is something that is natural to all of us.

But provide a person "something for nothing" for any length of time and that desire to achieve slowly dies out and they become a "dependent". Some believe the Democrats/Progressives want a dependent society as the only way they can retain power. I can't believe they would be so sinister, but one thing is indisputable, after spending trillions of dollars, the "Great Society" and every other entitlement program in history has failed. The poverty level is the same today as it was 50 years ago and some people are mired in a lifetime of despair and dependency.

I really believe that woman who called Rush had been a potential "achiever" at one time if she had the incentive to do so, but because of a lifetime and maybe even a generational history of entitlements, she now just wants to be "taken care of"...how sad.

I am a "radical"

I am a right wing radical. I'm not sure how I turned out this way, but I did. These days it seems to be normal to blame your parents for your failings, so that's what I'm going to do. I grew up in a poor household; for a while my dad was an alcoholic but he got sober, on his own, without any help from social services or rehab programs. But I am sure those vague memories I have of him coming home drunk, and yet he and my mother somehow working out their problems, contributed toward my development as a future radical.

Even though my parents were poor, and went through many difficult years raising three boys, to my knowledge they never accepted help from anyone nor would they have ever considered reneging on a debt no matter how long it took to pay it off. They were not very political but were Republicans, I think mainly because after World War II my dad would not have voted for any presidential candidate except general Dwight Eisenhower or "Ike" as they called him. So I guess being the son of "Republicans" started me off on my path towards being a radical.

Parents were strict in those days and being one of three "somewhat wild" boys (we did have our share of trouble), when I look back I recall my parents always taking the side of the school teachers or administrators, and even in a few cases the police. They never tried to claim our "innocence" with school officials, and they never took legal action when we broke ankles or arms on the neighbor's ice skating pond or playing tackle football without equipment at the local park. I am sure this attitude about us kids taking "personal responsibility" for our actions had something to do with me becoming a radical.

During the past week those of us that are Conservatives have been defined as radicals. There was no sense to it but the main stream media who have so much control in this country have done a very good job of redefining what a "radical" is in this country. If you believe that the government is too intrusive in your life, you are a radical. If you believe that the national debt can potentially ruin the lives of your children or grandchildren, you are a radical. If you believe that everyone should take personal responsibility for themselves except when they seriously need help, you are a radical. If you believe that people that live in this country should be citizens or should be legally here as a guest, you are a radical.

I could go on about how I became a radical, but if my parents were here they would not recognize this country. They would not believe you can get three years of "unemployment insurance"; or if you made a loan commitment you cannot pay for, there is a government program to help you get out of paying that debt; or if you can't provide for your children, their school will provide all their meals; or if your child broke their arm playing football at the local park, there is a lawyer somewhere that will get you a cash payout.

The main stream media has done such a good job of defining our new culture, that those of us who remember the "old days" in this country are now radicals. I guess if they were alive, my parents would be proud that I am defined as a radical.

Twas the 36 Days Before Christmas

Do you remember the 2000 election? Those 36 crazy days of counting and analyzing punch-card ballots, "hanging and pregnant chads", vote-a-matic machines selected by Democrats (but confusing to Florida democrat voters), legal challenges, and mass confusion over what was one of the most dramatic political dramas of our time.

The Bush/Gore election was one for the books and had the nation on the edge of our seats until the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the madness. People will argue forever whether Bush or Gore won the election, but looking back neither turned out to be a very good choice. Bush was a disappointment, but at least he was honest and tried to do his best. But can you imagine Al (global warming) Gore as President and John (the adulterer) Edwards as Vice-President. Those two are classic examples of why many Americans have such a negative image of politicians.

But this blog is not about politicians it's about that crazy election. I heard recently that Hollywood is even making a movie about it. So as we approach Christmas I though it might be fun to revisit a version of the famous Christmas poem that I wrote after that '2000' election was over:

December 2000

'Twas the Night Before Christmas II
By Charles L. Strickland

‘Twas the night before Christmas at the White House this year,
the Demos had gathered to all shed a tear;
Carville, Jesse, and Al Sharpton were there,
hanging their heads by the chimney with care.

Bill Clinton was nestled all snug in his bed,
While visions of Monica danced in his head;
And Hillary in her kerchief, and Chelsea her cap,
Had just settled down for a long winter’s nap.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
They rose from their beds to see what was the matter.
When what to their wondering eyes should be seen,
But Tipper and Al Gore with a Vote-a-matic machine.

"We flew in from Palm Beach, and guess what folks?
I think we have found some more votes!
Look at these ballots with hanging chads pushed through,
and I even have dimpled and pregnant ones too!"

"Oh please Bill, can we count them once more,
you promised the next President would be named Al Gore"
Bill settled him down and said, "Do I need to repeat?,
The Supremes have spoken, and you are dead meat!"

So they all went inside and gathered around,
to see if George W. Bush’s FBI file could be found.
And as Christmas drew near, you could hear them all sigh,
"Merry Christmas to Al, and to Al a good-bye!"

Hands off my Estate

The debate on the "estate tax" is raging in Congress right now because at the end of this year it could change dramatically. The Bush tax cuts on estate tax have been progressively more lenient and this year there is 'zero' estate tax. But unless something changes, on January 1st the tax reverts to the previous level of a tax of 55% on all assets over $1 million. This may seem fair to some people, but if you own a small business, a family farm (or ranch) your heirs could have to sell the business or property just to pay these ridiculous estate taxes.

During an interview with Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener today he was asked; "If a person works all their life to earn assets and pays taxes on those assets (like a business or farm), why should he pay taxes again after he dies?" The arrogant Congressman responded "He doesn't pay taxes, he is dead, and his heirs pay the taxes because this is "income" to them.

This one question to a committed liberal clearly illustrates their philosophical belief in "income redistribution". Liberals (progressives) believe that when someone with assets dies, a (major) portion of their assets should be distributed to the people in the country who are "not as fortunate". And of course liberals believe the government should be the ones to redistribute those assets.

It will be interesting to see what the politicians negotiate during the next few weeks, but there is no way the successful investor, or businessman, or farmer is going to tolerate 55% of their estate going to the government instead of their family. What I have earned in my lifetime (and paid taxes along the way) belongs to my family. If the government does pass this ridiculous tax we will figure out how to keep from paying it.

Old-time comedian Jack Benny who loved his money once said "If I can't take it with me, I'm not going to go". I say; "If the government tries to take 55% of it, we will give it away before we go".

Dancing with the "Stars"

This cleverly photo-shopped picture has been traveling the internet as a parody of the TV show and as a parody of our politics.

It seems like the only people you hear about in the news these days are Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Now it's understandable that the (mainly) liberal media in this country would spend their time concentrating on Obama's activities - but why are they also so obsessed with Sarah Palin?

I'll tell you why - FEAR. I am not a Sarah Palin fan, especially as a presidential candidate, but if you look at the polls Palin's ratings are almost the same as Obama's - both positive and negative. Whether you like her or not, a lot of the "folks" do. I have a son who cannot stand Sarah Palin and shutters at the thought of her ever being president. So of course as a good father I forward every Palin article I can find to him (he is working on a "Palin" filter to stop my emails). He is also a Libertarian and cannot stand Barack Obama and would vote him out of office in a minute.

But what if his only choice is Palin or Obama in the next election? His response would be; "Then I won't vote". But not voting means the Washington "elites" that want to run this country win.

Palin is not an articulate speaker; she has little international experience, but has managed a city as a mayor and a state as a governor. Obama is an articulate speaker (as long as a teleprompter tells him what to say), and he had some international experience when he became president, but he had no management experience whatsoever and after two years his incompetence as a manager has risen to the surface and put this country in huge peril. Do any of the readers of this blog believe Sarah Palin or any other conservative could have done a worse job?

Palin in a recent interview was asked by Barbara Walters if she thought she could beat Obama in an election; she said "yes". You have to give her an "A" for self confidence. I don't think she will be the republican nominee in 2012 but if she decides to run it will be interesting to see if the "folks" can push her over the top. If they do, I believe one of my sons will start making plans to leave the country...but as Ronald Reagan once said; "If we ever lose our freedoms here there will be no other place to go".

As for Obama, to paraphrase one of my favorite commentators; "The Obama presidency will eventually be nothing more than graffiti on the wall of American history".

We need to "rescue" California

The state of California is sinking under its own weight and some big changes are needed.

California is a very "blue" state. To begin with, Conservative candidates start with a 16 point disadvantage compared to their Democratic opponents. But this is an once-in-a-lifetime election and if we don't change the course of this state - predictions will come true that California will slide into the ocean; not from an earthquake, but from a debt burden that we cannot sustain.

The fiscal problems in California are too numerous to detail in a blog but one thing is for sure, we need to try something radically different. So why not put some business people in charge and give them a chance at trying to rescue our state. Career politicians and our so-called "Republican" governor have failed miserably.

Senator Barbara Boxer has represented California for decades and has done nothing but help dig the hole deeper. Jerry Brown had his chance as governor in the past so why should we "retread" him and send him back to Sacramento. He is nothing but a career politician who has no experience running any business. Do we really want to reelect someone who has spent his whole life in politics?

I urge my California readers to give Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman a chance to get this ship turned around. Both accomplished business women who at least know what a balanced budget is all about. The men have had their chance; let's turn this state over to some Conservative women.