Collective Bargaining 101

Not really sure what 'Collective Bargaining' is? Then head over to the Foundry blog at the Heritage Foundation. The first thing you will learn is that Collective Bargaining is not a Right...it's a privilege.

Second, they have a nice video illuminating the racket that Collective Bargaining really is. Collusion between Public Sector Unions and politicians of a certain persuasion to keep overnment big, tax dollars flowing, and those politicians in power...

"...Government Unions have a direct stake in keeping government big, no matter what the voters may want..."

As Instapundit likes to say...our country is in the very best of hands...

The Mob Has Spoken?

So who really wants over-priced and under-performing "high-speed rail"? Apparently we all do, since the Federal Government is going to give it to us...

I can only imagine that this is the reaction that Democrats think that these boondoggle projects will create in the public...



Count me as on board! I am nearing my military retirement, and need one of those cushy jobs!

This Isn't Working - Pt 3

This Isn't Working - Pt 2

This Isn't Working - Pt 1

This is "Free" Health Care...

Thanks to Rep. Paul Ryan for these great slides:





More of Ryan's slides here.

The Best Ham Sandwich...Evah!!

#tcot #hhrs #wwrd
Forget the Reagan-era $1000 hammers and toilets seats, and you can even forget Obama's $100/lb Waygu beef.

We have a new winner when it comes to Government waste, and it might even go to your waist....

The Obama-approved $595,000/lb Frozen Ham!!!

Here is a little proof from the government's own website, Recovery.gov, before it goes down the memory hole:

[Click to enlarge]

I sure hope we aren't buying these in bulk. I think I can get a better deal at COSTCO....

UPDATE: HOLY SCHNIKIES! The hits keep coming....

$1,562,568 FOR 'MOZZARELLA CHEESE'
$5,708,260 FOR 'PROCESS CHEESE'

[Hat Tip: Drudge, he is the one who dug these up...]

UPDATE II: Welcome Instapundit readers!

States of Disrepair

We can learn lessons from state's failed 'Progressive' programs.

Most good conservative thinkers make the Federalist argument that we should strive to limit the power and reach of the federal government, and instead leave most matters to be handled by the individual states.

However, recent events might give many conservatives pause concerning this cornerstone philosophy, given that some states have been acting like teenagers who have been handed the keys to the liquor cabinet and family car on the same key chain.

Take for instance articles from today concerning three of the most prominent 'Blue' states.

New York - The Obsolete New York Model: Where a tax-eating majority votes itself a permanent income....Struggling under the accumulated burden of eight decades of “progressive” government, we New Yorkers can serve as a warning to our fellow Americans as President Obama, following the New Deal playbook, seeks to use the current financial crisis to provide a new rationale and legitimacy for the gargantuan machinery of the federal government.

California - Following Calif. Off A Green Cliff: Climate Change: A 2006 California law meant to lead the way on global warming looks like an economic disaster in the making. So far, Congress and Obama have ignored the warnings.

Massachusetts - Bay State Rationing: Health Care: Massachusetts' universal medical program is no longer universal. Coverage is being dropped for 30,000 because not enough money is around to pay for everyone. There's a lesson in this for Congress.

The running theme here is that these states have implemented unsustainable government largesse, and show us exactly what President Obama's proposed programs will bring us on a national scale. They are the cure that makes the disease worse.

Of course, one only need compare these examples to other states that have fared much better. To be parochial, I will trumpet my adopted home state....

Texas - Going Alamo: Why jobs and companies are flocking to a big small-government state. If you want to know where the future is headed, look where the people are going. And if you want to know where the people are going, check with U-Haul. Here's an interesting indicator, first noted by the legendary economist Arthur Laffer: Renting a 26-foot U-Haul truck to go from Austin to San Francisco this July would cost you about $900. Renting the same truck to go from San Francisco to Austin? About $3,000. In the great balance of supply and demand, California has a large supply of people who are demanding to move to Texas. There's a reason for this.

God help me if I ever get orders to PCS to California!

Shovel Ready

Heh!

Markets Know Best

They say that the financial markets price in the future they see coming down the pike, based on current indicators.

So one might ask, why exactly are the markets continuing to sell off? What do they see coming? In short...the death of free enterprise.

Investors Business Daily has a pretty good write up on what has the markets spooked.

Is It Any Wonder The Market Continues To Sink?

Today, as the market continues to sell off and we plumb 12-year lows, we wish we had a different explanation. But it still looks, as we said four months ago, "like the U.S., which built the mightiest, most prosperous economy the world has ever known, is about to turn its back on the free-enterprise system that made it all possible."

Here is a quick summary of their main points on what is driving the market down:
- Mainstream Media being OK with the arrival of Socialism
- Talk of nationalization of major banks
- Stimulus bill with lots of pork (but no Earmarks though, so I am told) and no meaningful tax cuts
- $75 billion bailout for only 9 million , and nothing for honest hardworking homeowners who pay their mortgages
- Needed energy solutions taken off the table
- A Congressional majority more willing to payback it's special interest buddies who gave them millions in campaign cash
- That aforementioned Congressional majority acting like the rulers in a one-party state
- The emergence of trade protectionism, and the stagnation of free-trade
- Business leaders treated as criminals
- Talking down of the economy instead of words of hope. "Yes We Can" has become "Maybe We Can..."
- Lack of commitment to a strong defense

As IBD says...."All this in barely a month's time." Can't wait to see what is coming in month #2.....wait, I think the market is already telling us....and it ain't a pretty story.

Manna from Candyland

Not that it is a big surprise, but there was some project out there where kids wrote letters to the new President, expressing to him their desires for him to accomplish during his administration.

Most were the insipid repetitions of liberal quick-fixes, which the kids probably picked up from their teachers. (Surprise, it was co-sponsored by the NEA!) However one young man has apparently actually been watching the news, and decided to break the mold. Young Aaron Van Blerkom wants President Obama to "Please Make it rain candy!"



It seems that Aaron has been following the goings-on in Congress, because as soon as the new "Stimulus" bill is signed, that is exactly what will happen.

Well....maybe not for Aaron, but certainly for all those Democratic special interests and activist groups. But good on him for trying! I think he certainly has K Street in his future.....

First They Came For the Executives...

Today Obama struck a blow for America's self esteem, and punished work that results in failure:

"President Barack Obama took on bailed-out Wall Street firms on Wednesday, setting a $500,000 annual cap on pay for top executives at companies receiving taxpayer funds and tapping popular anger over financial sector excesses."

Now, of all the ideas that have rolled out in the last 2 weeks, this is certainly not the most objectionable. But are there limits to this idea?

"This is America, we don't disparage wealth. ... What gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers," he said.

If this is the road that Obama wants to go down, the real question needs to be...how far is he prepared to go??

Will he be prepared to call for a limit on the salaries of professional athletes? Much of their exorbitant paychecks are due to ticket sales. Tickets to seats in many stadiums around the country that are subsidized by taxpayer funding. If they had to play in stadiums actually affordable to their team's owner's wallets, there would be no glut of money to pay them millions. New, shiny, tax-payer funded stadia/arena permit the owners to shower manna upon these athletes. And by definition, most of these players are failures, but still accept millions without shame. Thus I would expect Obama to call on the NFL, NBA and MLB to cap their salaries...or else they could feel some pain...Janet Reno style!

Better yet, and perhaps more relevant to this whole bailout/stimulus, will Obama call for a cap on salaries of actors/actresses/executives who get paid millions by studios who take advantage of a possible Stimulus tax breaks for movie project flops? If Hollywood is to benefit directly from the 'stimulating' generosity of future generations, should it not be treated like the executives of bailout slurping companies?? It would be painful to see our favorite starlets wandering around the Cannes and Sundance festivals asking..."Who is John Galt?"

Of course I will not hold my breath. What I am really waiting for is the arrival of the Equalization of Opportunity Act, soon to emerge from inner sanctum of the Speaker of the House...

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

We Get What We Vote For - Part V

America, if you want to see what you have voted for, go here:


READTHESTIMULUS.ORG

Help them parse out the pork and largesse that is going to be shoved down your throat...

UPDATE: A quick experiment...I ran the text of the 'Stimulus' through 'Wordle', and this was the output of the most used words in the proposed bill....

We Get What We Vote For - Part III

Not sure why anyone would want to live in California anymore....

"California Democrats devise plan to hike taxes. By structuring them as fees, they would skirt GOP opponents and raise $9.3 billion. A court fight looms."

Like this is a great shock to anyone? Sigh....

"Republican legislators and antitax groups promised legal challenges to derail the Democrats' plan. "Raising taxes on people and playing funny math and calling it fees is not governing," said Assembly GOP leader Michael Villines of Clovis. "That's trickery, is what that is.""

Good luck guys. If you don't succeed, perhaps you can hitch a ride with one of the businesses fleeing out of the state...

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

Hillary v. Adoption?

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit asks: IS HILLARY'S BABY-BOND IDEA ANTI-GAY?

He uses this question to set up the observation from 'Boi from Troy'

"I really did not think about Hillary Clinton’s $5000 Baby Bond proposal until seeing this poll by Daily Kos. . . . But if the Baby Bond is only available to families of newborns–what does that mean to gays and lesbians?"

Boy also notes later in his post:

"So, quite specifically, gay males are the only potential parents who are not eligible for the Baby Bond benefit."

Uh, Hello? What about straight adoptive parents? Under this standard, we would not be eligible either. (And yes, I am an adoptive father of a newborn) And while we are at it, lesbians couples who adopt (versus doing artificial insemination) would be in the same boat.

So, with all due respect to his overall point, I think Boi is being a little over-dramatic about the anti-gay aspect here.

Ultimately, I agree with what I think Boi's ultimate unspoken point was. If such a proposal were to be 'fair', it would include eligibility for parents in all adoptive circumstances (including those adoptions of older children) as long as no benefit has been previously established.

Adoption costs thousands of dollars up front not matter what the parent's orientation. Not allowing them to claim this benefit for their new child is discriminatory to everyone, most of all the child. Because in the end, the benefit belongs to the child, not the parents....