Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June 29th, 2010

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruits of their labor.” Adrian Pierce Rogers

Star Parker is seeking to upset Democrat incumbent Laura Richardson in California’s 37th Congressional District. Richardson is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist in a strongly democratic-leaning district that voted for Brother O four-to-one in 2008.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

[After President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996] I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism. But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction. Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.—Star Parker

Conventional political wisdom doesn’t give Parker much of a chance to win a solidly Democratic district made up mostly of ethnic minorities, but those same “wise” pundits said Trey Grayson and Bob Bennett were slam dunks a few months back.

The focus of Parker’s campaign is to pull black people out of the welfare dependency trap. “The barrier between America’s chronically poor and the American dream is the welfare state socialism.”

Parker’s February 2009 article below is an excellent commentary on our nation’s present situation.

I.M. Kane

(H-T Pete)


 

Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation

By Star Parker

Six years ago I wrote a book called “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960’s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems. The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

“This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care, and education.”

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — which President Johnson said “…does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) will try to attach the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (PSEECA) to the war supplemental up for approval by the House this week. The Act forces state and local governments to collectively bargain with police, firefighters and emergency workers, which would compel volunteer firefighters to join unions and may deter or even eliminate America’s nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments.

The act will impose an expensive unfunded mandate on state and local governments, without providing financing for the mandate, and force them to choose between cutting services or raising taxes.

“Firefighters unions vehemently oppose volunteer firefighters because they reduce the need for paid firefighters. They levy stiff internal fines against unionized firefighters who volunteer off-duty. By requiring all states and localities to collectively bargain, PSEECA would make it easier for unions to crack down on volunteer firefighting.” James Sherk, The Heritage Foundation

I.M. Kane


 

Will Congress Kill Volunteer Fire Departments?

By Robert B. Bluey

Volunteer fire departments are about as American as apple pie. But under legislation moving quickly in Congress, this staple of American life could soon be a thing of the past.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D.-S.C.) wants to include the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act as part of the war supplemental coming before the House this week. The bill forces state and local governments to collectively bargain with police, firefighters and emergency workers. Its critics say it would compel volunteer firefighters to join unions, threatening the survival of America’s nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments.

The act would affect some states more than others. In North Carolina and Virginia, for example, collective bargaining is currently prohibited. Eighteen other states have limitations on bargaining. The legislation would likely force those governments to abandon merit-based promotions for public safety workers and shift instead to a collectively bargained seniority schedule, which unions prefer.

By including the legislation in the much larger supplemental appropriations bill, which funds the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clyburn would avoid a contentious fight with conservatives and appease unions with a legislative victory. And because the Senate has already passed the supplemental, Republicans would have no opportunity to amend it. In other words, the only way to stop the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is to keep it out of the supplemental.

The House previously approved the measure in 2007 with the support of 98 Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) tried and failed to attach it to the Senate version of the war supplemental in May. At least six Republican senators have signaled their support for the bill. They include Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine).

None of the Senate Republican co-sponsors hail from states that limit collective bargaining. Johanns, normally a solid conservative with an American Conservative Union rating of 95%, told the Wall Street Journal: “For several years now, we’ve seen the benefit of a similar policy in Nebraska which prevents public employees from going on strike while helping to establish reasonable compensation ranges.”

Critics of the bill call it anything but reasonable. The Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk documented the consequences to volunteer firefighters last time the bill was this close to passage in 2007. Sherk noted that nationwide 72% of firefighters are volunteers, serving mostly communities with fewer than 25,000 people.

Under the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, also known as PSEECA, the International Association for Fire Fighters stands to gain. The union, which represents career firefighters, strongly opposes volunteers and prohibits its members from belonging to volunteer departments, even when they’re not on duty.

“Firefighters unions vehemently oppose volunteer firefighters because they reduce the need for paid firefighters,” Sherk said. “They levy stiff internal fines against unionized firefighters who volunteer off-duty. By requiring all states and localities to collectively bargain, PSEECA would make it easier for unions to crack down on volunteer firefighting.”

Boosting membership at public-sector unions is a top priority for Big Labor. Last year they surpassed private-sector unions and represent an area of growth for the labor movement. Of course, the costs are steep as governments grapple with higher salaries and expensive benefits.

Like most labor unions, the International Association for Fire Fighters is also a major supporter of liberals, having given 82% of its political donations to Democrats over the past 20 years.

Conservatives aren’t alone in opposing the legislation. The National League of Cities and National Sheriffs’ Association criticized the bill when Reid attempted to attach it to another piece of legislation earlier this year. They worry about the encroachment of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which would intervene in states and localities without collective bargaining laws.

“We believe that employment decisions are best made at the state and local level,” said Ron Loveridge, mayor of Riverside, Calif., and president of the National League of Cities.

In an alert to its members, the National Sheriffs’ Association attacked the legislation for imposing an unnecessary federal mandate: “To force sheriffs and other public safety officers to adhere to a ‘one-size fits all’ federally mandated labor-management guidelines is to impede the ability of public safety offices to function most effectively and allocate valuable resources to the maintenance of public safety.”

The bill’s problems extend beyond the encroachment on states’ rights. The growing power and cost of public-sector unions is already straining government coffers. Sherk estimates that unionized state and local government employees make up to 12% more than their non-union counterparts and have more expensive benefit packages. Even without the legislation, the cost to states and localities is already adding up.


 

Public Safety Employer Employee Cooperation Act: The Heritage Foundation 2010 Labor Boot Camp

By James Sherk

What Is the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (PSEECA)?

  • The act would require all state and local governments to collectively bargain with public safety employees–police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel.
  • States would be forced to permit bargaining over wages, hours, and all terms and conditions of employment.
  • States would have to provide a dispute resolution mechanism, such as binding arbitration.
  • PSEECA allows the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to determine whether a state’s collective bargaining arrangements meet the standards as defined by the act. If they do not, the FLRA could impose a collective bargaining system on the state.
  • The FLRA would have considerable authority to enforce the act, including:
    • Determining the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation;
    • Conducting hearings and resolving complaints of unfair labor practices; and
    • Supervising or conducting elections to determine whether a labor organization has been selected as an exclusive representative by a voting majority of the employees.
    • States would be granted the authority to pass laws more expansive than those the federal government imposed.
    • States would not, however, be allowed to pass narrower laws than those contained in the act.

 Policy Objections

  • Unionized state and local government employees earn 11-12 percent higher pay than comparable non-union workers.
  • They also have more expensive benefit packages than non-union workers.
  • The act would end local control and flexibility by forcing the minority that has chosen not to collectively bargain to do so. Different states and local governments have different needs and should be free to fit their policies to their individual needs. Collective bargaining does not work everywhere.
  • Large majorities of public safety employees already collectively bargain. The states in which collective bargaining is appropriate and affordable have already chosen to do so. The legislation represents a solution in search of a problem.
  • Not all issues should be collectively negotiated. For instance: 
    • Police unions should not negotiate the terms and conditions under which their members may use deadly force.
    • Many state and local governments promote police officers on the basis of merit and performance instead of through collectively bargained seniority schedules. Merit-based promotions and raises encourage hard work and help put the best workers in the most sensitive positions. However, unions prefer seniority-based promotions. States should not be forced to bargain over this issue.
    • Experience demonstrates that collective bargaining does not lead to increased cooperation between public safety employees and their employers.
    • The process is inherently adversarial: Pitting employees and employers against each other at the bargaining table creates as much conflict as cooperation.
    • Consequently, public-sector employees will often strike when the law explicitly forbids it, putting vital public services at risk.
    • PSEECA may deter or even eliminate volunteer firefighting. Firefighters unions vehemently oppose volunteer firefighters because they reduce the need for paid firefighters. They levy stiff internal fines against unionized firefighters who volunteer off-duty. By requiring all states and localities to collectively bargain, PSEECA would make it easier for unions to crack down on volunteer firefighting.

Economic Effects

  • The act imposes an expensive unfunded mandate on state and local governments.
  • Without providing financing for the mandate, the act will force these governments to either cut services or raise taxes.
  • The act prevents employers from hiring workers who would do the same job for less than union wages, thus undermining potentially more qualified competition.
  • This gives the union much more negotiating power but harms workers who could negotiate a better individual deal with the employer. A non-union worker who prefers merit-based promotions must instead accept what the union negotiates for him.

James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

Read Full Post »