Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
Saw this video being passed around yesterday, and it's well worth the watch:
The dominance of government unions is the greatest evidence that America is on the way to technocratic end times. Beginning with the progressive movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, liberals have sought to take power out of the hands of voters and place it in the hands of "experts," a strategy learned from Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany (and later mimicked by fascists and communists the world over). Woodrow Wilson pushed the rise of the administrative state. And unfortunately, Congress, which should have defended its own power, went along with it.
The reason is simple: Congresspeople want to be re-elected. The easiest way to be re-elected to any position is never to take a position on an issue (see Obama, Barack). And the easiest way to get away with such punting is to delegate your power somewhere else. By delegating power to unelected bureaucrats, Congress has been able to avoid scrutiny on issues ranging from the environment (EPA) to the tax code (IRS). Essentially, our current system of government is a game of mad libs in which Congress creates the sentence and the administrators fill in the crucial blanks. The administrators, after all, won't be subject to a vote of the public.
Now, Congress wants to delegate writing the sentence to a group of just a few Congresspeople. This creates even less responsibility for our Congresspeople, which is exactly what they want.
What does this have to do with government unions? Well, if you think government unions have bankrupted the states, wait until you see what they do with the federal government. As more and more power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats who are not punished for their overspending of taxpayer dollars -- and as fewer and fewer powerful Congresspeople control the legislative agenda -- the unions will hold more and more sway. This is going to get even uglier, folks.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '11
Re: Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
Great topic! Ironically I looked at the map first and thought this would be a mafia story. Same tactics really but less car bombs and more nepotism. Without breaking the grip of these unions(actually declaring them illegal seems good), meaningful reform in their vast sphere of influence will never happen. I missed the part in Simpson-Bowles that addressed this critical defect in our government. Seems to me that meaningful attempts at reform without addressing this folly are like delivering food crates to Somalia and pretending the warlords are not there.
Re: Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
It is by no means an accident that, when politics became a profession for the majority of Congressmen in the 1880s, Progressivism as a movement had its beginning. Most Congressmen simply want to get re-elected. Re-election is their first priority, and that means that dodging responsibility is the name of the game.
May '10
Re: Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
I got about two-thirds of the way through it and need Dramamine. Must find new animation effects...
Mar '11
Re: Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
Most of what’s said in the video about state and local unions is true. Federal unions represent a different and less serious problem. First, the federal government, unlike many state and local governments, is an open shop. You don’t have to belong to a union to work there. Second, federal bargaining rights are severely limited. Bargaining over salary and pension benefits is generally prohibited. Third, federal managers and supervisors, the “unelected bureaucrats” who supposedly are making policy, are excluded from bargaining units. Fourth, federal union dues are usually low; if you can’t require people to join, this limit’s the amount you can charge in dues (and spend on political contributions). Fifth, federal union members are heavily constrained by the Hatch Act in their political activities, generally not the case with state and local union members.
Federal unions exercise what power they have by lobbying Congress, limiting management freedom by negotiating the restricted range of subjects over which they are authorized to bargain, and fighting against firings and disciplinary actions. They represent primarily a problem of inefficiency for federal agencies, but are neither as powerful nor threatening as their state and local counterparts.
Nov '10
Re: Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
The authority that has been given up by Congress to Washington's alphabet soup of agencies is a big problem that no one seems to talk about. To me it is in direct opposition to the spirit of the founding and bottom up government. But what to do about it?
I have two ideas.
First of all most of the agencies mention shouldn't even exist at the federal level. Those that remain should have their abilities to pass regulations stripped. They can make recommendations to Congress, but only Congress can actually pass their recommendations into law. Those are just my thoughts of the top of my head. Any other ideas?
(Note: I've written more at my blog on this, as I can't say what I want to in under 200 words)
Aug '10
Re: Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
Ben writes: "The reason is simple: Congresspeople want to be re-elected."
So - let's change that. Let's make service in Congress just that - service. Hard work. Low pay. Zero benefits. A part-time job of service to the country. Sign on for two years - after which they should be begging to go back home and work a real job.
Sep '10
Re: Of Government Unions and Super Congresses
Speak of cognitive dissonance: the federal government is the most omniscient beneficent entity on Earth, we are perpetually told. Just why is it, then, that its employees need unions to protect their interests? Collective bargaining by us ordinary taxpayers - as in the form of the Tea Party - is branded racist and extremist. Odd counterpoint.