Lies about tea party come true in Wisconsin
The public-sector union protests continue in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states. James Taranto,who writes the Best of the Web Today column at WSJ.com, finds it “quite striking the way almost every lie the left ever told about the Tea Party has turned out to be true of the government unionists in Wisconsin and their supporters:
• Extreme rhetoric. The Wisconsin Republican Party has produced what Mediaite.org calls an “incredibly effective” video juxtaposing liberal complaints about allegedly extremist Tea Party rhetoric with unionist signs likening Gov. Walker to Hitler and other dictators. Left-wing journalists are making similar invidious comparisons: “Workers Toppled a Dictator in Egypt, but Might Be Silenced in Wisconsin” read the headline of a Washington Post column by Harold Meyerson last week. The other day on CNN we saw scenes of a Madison crowd chanting, “Kill the bill” — which was said to be violent and invidious a year ago, when “the bill” was ObamaCare.
• Violence. Blogress Ann Althouse, a state employee based in Madison, posted a video of municipal salt trucks blowing their horns in support of the unionists. A YouTube commenter responded (quoting verbatim), “whoever video taped this has no life and should be shot in the head.” Unlike Frances Fox Piven, Althouse has never advocated violence, but don’t expect the Times to give this the kind of coverage it gave Piven’s claims that she had received threatening emails.
• Partisan AstroTurf. That’s the Beltway term referring to a fake grassroots movement. Politico reported last week that “the Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America arm — the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign — is playing an active role in organizing protests.” A blogger at the OFA website, BarackObama.com, writes: “To our allies in the labor movement, to our brothers and sisters in public work, we stand with you, and we stand strong.” …
• Refusal to accept election results. Although Republicans have a majority in the Wisconsin Senate, Democrats have fled the state, taking advantage of the body’s rules to deny the majority a quorum. The Indianapolis Star reports that Democrats from the Indiana House are employing the same tactic. Even Barack Obama, when he was an Illinois senator, usually voted “present.”
• Stupidity. Remember “Teabonics,” a photo album of misspelled Tea Party signs? The unionists can’t spell any better — and some of them are teachers! Althouse got one photo of what we think is a woman holding a sign that reads ” ‘Open for business’ = Closed for Negotiatins [sic].” Also, some of the teachers’ tactics — in particular, fraudulently calling in sick and exploiting other people’s children by enlisting them as protesters — seem not only unethical but calculated to repel the public. One blessing of low standards for public school teachers is that it ensures many of them are not bright enough to stage an effective protest.
The one exception: So far we haven’t seen any evidence of racism by the Wisconsin unionists. But we’re watching for it.
If only the tea partyers had been accused of getting fake doctor’s notes to excuse their absence from their (private-sector) jobs, it’d be a total match.
The tea party movement didn’t suffer much from the false accusations against it. Will the union protesters’ cause suffer because they’ve actually done these things?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
169 comments Add your comment
fairness for all
February 23rd, 2011
8:28 am
Amen Kyle—keep preaching. There should be no place for government unions it is a direct conflict of interest issue as the politicians who gave up ridiculous benefits are funneled money for their election campaigns from the same unions they negotiate with. There is also the issue of people who don’t wish to be union being forced to give their money to them. Let them spend their money on 401k’s rather than union dues. Anyone not seeing this situation clearly need look no further than the school superintendents salaries in Pa, NJ, and Ga. Case closed.
Gene Bessent
February 23rd, 2011
8:29 am
Not buying it, Kyle. This has absolutely nothing to do with any state budget. It’s all politics. After the “Citizen’s United” travesty, our government is bought and paid for by corporations and unions. Bust the unions and what do we have left? Government by corporate stooges (read Republicans).
I have an idea
February 23rd, 2011
8:30 am
Let’s take away people’s power to negotiate and pay them less. Sounds grand. You republicans are a little slow. This will affect you guys as well. Profits and paychecks don’t have political affiliations.
Fletch
February 23rd, 2011
8:32 am
I have an idea – “Let’s take away people’s power to negotiate and pay them less.”
Sorry, bad arguement. I have an idea, let’s pay people based on their skills, abilities and performance. If they don’t like the pay scale or the benefits, they can find another job more to their liking. Oh wait, we have that now. It’s called the private sector.
Buzz G
February 23rd, 2011
8:34 am
Liberals won’t be happy until all the states have balance sheets that look like California and Illinois. Or worse yet, like Washington’s. Now, if only Georgia could get our liberals to move to Wisconsin.
don
February 23rd, 2011
8:34 am
Lt. Hildago made the ultimate sacrifice for the protestors? How many rebublican legislators will be there?
Fletch
February 23rd, 2011
8:36 am
Still waiting on answer as to what the Unions have done for me in the last 20 years. Or even more to the point, what protections do they offer me that aren’t already covered by the state and federal regs?
Jimmy62
February 23rd, 2011
8:38 am
Don’t any of you find it disturbing that private sector unions have plummeted in membership while public sector ones have blossomed? There’s a reason for this, and that’s that even the biggest fools in the private sector can see how unions tend to create inefficient situations that lead to companies going out of business and people losing their jobs. In the public sector, on the other hand, there’s no need to make a profit, and the people that negotiate for the employer have no stake in it. Their department can be completely inefficient and wasteful and lose loads of money, but the taxpayers will keep paying for it no matter what. And the people negotiating for the government have no incentive to get a good deal. They will be out of office before the ridiculous pensions they promised start causing problems.
AmVet
February 23rd, 2011
8:44 am
…how unions tend to create inefficient situations that lead to companies going out of business and people losing their jobs.
Maybe you better alert the men and women at Lockheed Martin. Boeing, Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Haliburton, L-3 Communications and on and on and on, that they are about to lose their jobs because of labor unions.
Oh, that’s right. THOSE corporations don’t count, do they?
dean
February 23rd, 2011
8:48 am
don, if you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand.
Have a great day.
Blue Wilson
February 23rd, 2011
8:58 am
This issue is not about job creation that would strengthen the economy
its not about building a stronger Manufacturing base its simple, its about control and greed take from the poor and give to the rich.
Our Federal government created the N.L.R.B. to ensure this type tactic would be follow through FAIRLY, The bargaining process works it has for years, we do not have to go back to the sweat shop era. If you need to make cuts start at the top from the govenor wages put his pension in line with state workers entittlements, have him pay for his health care,
have him pay for spouses benefits then do the same for the State senate and Representatives then only allow them to receive penison off One federal retirment plan and not double dip in all goverment plans. again start at the top, have the people vote on all wages.We dont have to do Union busting we need to balance a budget,this has all the appearances of refusal to bargain in good faith and a elected Goverment that, has fail its people. Maybe its time to go toa part time State goverment with sallaries that are in-line with there proformance.
enough is enough Union busting will not work in WISCONSIN.MICHIGAN. OHIO. OR ANY OTHER STATE. The Teaparty and Republicans are the same
they want the middle class to desolve while taking all advantages of what has been created by a party progressive fair and, equal change.
Common Sense
February 23rd, 2011
9:32 am
You cannot take from the poor because they don’t it to take.
And which part of NO MONEY LEFT do you union lovers just not grasp?
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
9:34 am
Extreme rhetoric = straw man. When labor supporters chant “kill the bill” it’s not the same as when it’s said by the side that’s also known for its nativism and vigilante violence (Oklahoma City). Plus, people chanting “kill the bill” are promoting social justice, not making a call to reclaim some lost cultural purity. Thus, it’s different.
Violence = straw man. See above. Leaving aside for a moment the Tides Foundation episode and the Austin plane crash, show me one significant act of violence in Madison to approach the kicking of a person we saw in Kentucky last year.
Partisan AstroTurf. = straw man. There’s every reason to think Wisconson residents are in support of the union activists. Plus, a side where the candidate himself is an astroturf-generated front man for the Koch brothers agenda has no call to level this charge against its enemies.
Refusal to accept election results = straw man. As we saw in Egypt, elections are ultimately contingent and subject to abrogation by the people when those in power act in an autocratic manner. In other words, representation – through democracy or any other means – without justice is subject to the checking influence of the people. You’d think the people who romanticize the rebellion of the US revolutionaries against Great Britain, of all people, would appreciate this point.
Stupidity = straw man. To quote Animal House: fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life. Likewise, complacent and suddenly gripped with misdirected pseudo-rage is no way for people to go into old age, as so many Tea Party members tend to do (misplacing their rage from its proper targets, which should be the rapacious Wall St. financiers raping the country).
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
9:36 am
Why must workers be forced to join a union? Why the fear of allowing those that do not want to participate an opt out?
Were the unions really be adding value, union members would be clamoring to contribute even more than their mandatory dues. But they are not. Ask yourself why.
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
9:39 am
Using the force of government to guarantee yourself a larger piece of the American Pie is coming to a rapid end.
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
9:45 am
Using the force of government to guarantee yourself a larger piece of the American Pie is coming to a rapid end.
About the stupidest thing I’ve heard.
Apparently you haven’t done much reading of the financial press on the outrages perpetrated in recent years by people, many of them in the financial sector, enriching themselves and benefiting from taxpayer-funded bailouts. People on the Wall St / Washington revolving door of ultra-lucrative career slots sure seem to be using the “force of government” to their own benefit, and not just to get themselves a “larger piece of the American Pie” as you naively put it, but to steal the whole damn pie itself.
JAG
February 23rd, 2011
9:48 am
They can have a union all they want, but no public tax dollars should go to government worker’s beholden to anyone else but their employer(us). Fire all union members. We don’t have the money to entertain these mathematically challenged socialists. Employment is based on production and merit in every industry. Why are they excluded?
King George
February 23rd, 2011
9:49 am
The underlying issue in WI and with negotiations with other state and municipal employees unions is the ability to collectively bargain for non- wage and benefit issues. Where schools have been crippled by the outcome of these negotiations include number of workdays (see the random “teacher workday” or “teacher conference day,” and especially the restriction of whom can actually become a teacher (education degree only, which if you recall from college, was all fluff with no real academic achievement required). The other aspect is the removal of the requirement of jointing a union, instead of having it be optional. These rightfully cripple public unions, but this is not being fully vetted by the analysis in any media.
If my point of belittling education degrees is insulting, please note that this is based in reality. A masters degree in education is academically equivalent of a pedestrian (non-science or mathematics) bachelors. If you come across a Ph’D in education who is trying to boast about their educational background, ask them e title of their thesis. A choke and a sputter will follow. If you wrought and get an answer, it will be something along the lines of “Crossing the Gender Boundaries in Retasking a Homosexual Approach to Remedial Mathematics.”
That will usually end the conversation.
jconservative
February 23rd, 2011
9:55 am
What the signs and name calling prove is that one is always foolish when one adopts the “holier than thou” belief in their positions.
You could take some of the prior Tea Party and some of the current pro-union signs and change the subject and the same signs would be usable. I have saved in my system signs showing Obama as Hitler and Governor Walker as Hitler.
Same sign, different subject.
But as Sarah pointed out a few weeks ago we have the right to peacefully assemble and petition the Government.
“Congress shall make no law… abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And if we end up making complete fools of ourselves in the process, well, the Constitution does not prevent that. It is one of those 9th Amendment rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
9:55 am
Fire all union members. We don’t have the money to entertain these mathematically challenged socialists.
Another inanity uttered by the FOX News set.
Socialists are not the mathematically challenged ones, bud. The ones who are mathematically challenged are those who think we can continue with “socialism for the capitalists and capitalism for everyone else” (Michael Lewis) as the whole Koch Bros./Republican power machine is investing mega-moolah in ensuring that it continues.
And if you try firing all the union members, you’ll see your little Tea Party trifle buried in a grave so deep the political historians of the future will look in vain to find a trace of it.
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
9:59 am
Left Wing Whiner,
What part of using the force of government do you not grasp? I understand your need to shift the debate because you have nothing to stand on, Yet you still fail.
Socialists are challenged in math. They do not understand the concept of negative numbers.
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
10:05 am
Galt:
You’re apparently missing my point.
The “pie” you speak of is being progressively devoured by a Wall St speculator class and an entire economic system that is predicated on speculative growth instead of growth in the real economic sector. The fact that you think I’m the one “shifting” the debate shows how deluded you are in your pseudo-individualist ideology.
MPercy
February 23rd, 2011
10:18 am
george bedula @6:00 am “mr. wingfield are you on the payroll of the koch brothers, as is your false hero governor walker.”
I’m loving how the left is using the Kochs as if they fund every evil the Republicans can possibly be blamed for, while completely ignoring George Soros’ dirty hands and cheerleading efforts (MoveOn,org) to support the Democrats. Not to mention the dozens of other billionaires who contribute mightily to Democratic candidates and causes.
The “DEMOCRAT BILLIONAIRE DONORS LIST” includes Democrat “powerbrokers” including, Steven Spielberg, George Soros, Charles Ergen, Vance K. Opperman, Daniel Abraham, Warren Buffett, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Robert F.X. Sillerman, George Lucas, Alice Walton, Paul Allen, Sumner Redstone, Bill Gates, William Barron Hilton, Eric Schmidt, William Randolph Hearst III, Marc Benioff, Anthony Pritzker, Ray Milton Dolby, Charles Schwab, Robert Kraft, Gordon P. Getty II, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Ballmer, Ralph Lauren, Jeff Bezos, Henry Samueli.
When these folks donate to Democratic causes, it’s all fine and good and not at all buying the government they want. When the Kochs donate to Republican causes, it can only be corruption.
Of course, reality seems to be different. One can visit OpenSecrets.org or NewsMeat.com to see donations made by the Kochs. David Koch has contributed about $2.5M to Republican (and Libertarian) candidates for office, PACs, etc.
OTOH, Mr. Soros has given more than $3.6M to Democratic candidates for office, Democratic PACs and such (DNC, etc.).
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
10:27 am
Left Wing Whiner,
You are missing the point. Wall Street has nothing to do with this at all. It’s a diversion on your behalf.
Wall Street is voluntary. The American public did not demand Wall Street be bailed out on the taxpayer’s dime. No, it was the government that CHOSE to do so despite our objections.
To use it now as a tool of blame is disingenuous.
The American economy is larger than ever. The American economy is NOT just Wall Street.
Like every good or service that prices themselves out of a market, they must adjust those prices. Teachers are no different.
Speculative growth….that term should be reserved for boondoggles like biofuels, carbon tax credits and High Speed Rail, along with AMTRAK.
MPercy
February 23rd, 2011
10:30 am
Left wing management @9:45 am People on the Wall St / Washington revolving door of ultra-lucrative career slots sure seem to be using the “force of government” to their own benefit, and not just to get themselves a “larger piece of the American Pie” as you naively put it, but to steal the whole damn pie itself.
Sure they are. And who do they support with their campaign donations to keep the government they want in power? Well, generally speaking, whichever party they can get that will keep them the way they want. Goldman Sachs, for example had given 65-35 Dems-Reps for years (in 2008 cycle GS gave $4,348,938 to Ds and $1,508,961 to Rs, 74%-26%). Right up until Ds passed the most recent finreg bills, at which point the numbers reversed, in 2010 cycle so far GS has given $963,175 to Ds and $1,475,202 to Rs (39%-60%).
Tea Party protesters were *against* TARP that gave billions of dollars to Wall Street firms and *against* the bailouts that gave billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler and *against* the continuing bailouts of Fannie and Freddie to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and in general want to severely limit the power of the Federal Government. How in the world can you say they support giving increased power, via government supports, to Wall Street?
j smith
February 23rd, 2011
10:33 am
left wing idiot
Making the truth into straw men is the only concept you seem to grasp. Hitler was a socialist, need I say more?
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
10:43 am
America would be a better place today had we just taken the bitter medicine and let those that speculated beyond their means to fail.
Solid businesses would have picked up the pieces, the United States would be trillions less in debt today.
And it would have served as a reminder to all that due diligence is not a suggestion, but a requirement.
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
10:45 am
John Galt:
Wall Street is voluntary. The American public did not demand Wall Street be bailed out on the taxpayer’s dime. No, it was the government that CHOSE to do so despite our objections.
I don’t know what the statement “Wall St is voluntary” is supposed to mean. The crash brought on by deregulation and rampant Wall St speculation nearly brought down the world economic system in 2008, or at least that’s what George W. Bush’s team, led by Hank Paulsen, believed back in 2008.
The decision not to let other firms go the way of Lehman Bros. was made because it was believed this would bring down the entire world economic system, with unfathomable consequences. (And they were probably right – something tells me some of these Ayn Rand-toting individualists probably wouldn’t have been singing that old time individualist religion if they were lined up to receive government-sponsored food vouchers because their bank collapsed.)
MPercy: “Sure they are. And who do they support with their campaign donations to keep the government they want in power? ”
You get no disagreement from me! I entirely agree that the Democratic Party at the national level is just as bad as the Republican Party in its complete deference to Wall St. financial ideology. In my view this is an influence that must be rooted out of the Dem party at all costs and if that means dealing that party a crippling blow, so be it.
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
10:55 am
Left Wing,
There was plenty of opposition to the bailout. A few people, who had control were the ones that insisted the bailout must occur. That did not make them correct.
Bush was wrong, Paulson was wrong, Bernanke continues to be wrong and Geithner hasn’t a clue.
A belief does not make it the truth does it?
Those that make and lose money in transactions on Wall Street engage in ‘voluntary transactions.
There is no obligation for the Federal government to bail anyone out. It is not their role to sve the losers from their failures.
They bailed out their friends using fear as the lever.
carlosgvv
February 23rd, 2011
11:02 am
Kyle, it is the other way around. Propaganda and lies are the bread and butter of The Republican Party and Big Business.
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
11:05 am
John Galt:
Ok, I see where you’re coming from. Well in any case things didn’t work out that way, so we can’t know what would have happened if they’d “let the cards fall where they may” and can’t test your theory or know if you would have really been ok with it. But maybe you would have.
“Bush was wrong, Paulson was wrong, Bernanke continues to be wrong and Geithner hasn’t a clue.”
I am certainly in agreement with you there. By the way, I take it from your omission of the name Greenspan that you don’t think he was wrong?
Batavia
February 23rd, 2011
11:07 am
The ‘Flee Party’ gets busted…
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
11:09 am
Oh, by the way, j smith “Hitler was a socialist, need I say more?” I can’t let that one stand.
Hitler parodied socialism and brought about its opposite in every conceivable way.
rt
February 23rd, 2011
11:15 am
I would love to work a 40 hour work week. but alas, i work in the private sector where working harder than the next person, not paying off politicians, helps me keep my job.
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
11:15 am
Left Wing,
Greenspan was wrong as well.
No you cannot test my theory. But you dislike the results of the actions that were taken do you not?
Even more important is the principle behind it all. It is NOT the role of the government to bail out anyone. Government should NOT be trying to pick winners and losers, or save losers from their own failure.
With their “good intentions”, they pick the wrong solution nearly every time. It’s because you cannot rule by the Good Intentions Principle and be effective.
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
11:41 am
John Galt: “Even more important is the principle behind it all. It is NOT the role of the government to bail out anyone. Government should NOT be trying to pick winners and losers, or save losers from their own failure.”
Clearly we have fundamentally different philosophies. In my view, the claim “it is NOT the role of the government to bail people” to “pick winners”, etc. is based on an idealist view of some state of natural harmony prior to government intervention. I reject this because there is no peaceful and harmonious ’state of nature’ that government interrupts. There’s always law, authority, and some sense of justice, whether that justice is based on egalitarian notions or loyalty to a tribe or deity or whatever.
To my mind the claim “government should not pick winners and losers” is a cover for market idealism, to which I would reply: “yeah, and neither should some shoddy trumped-up notions of ‘marikets’”.
Brain
February 23rd, 2011
11:48 am
Galt,
You make outstanding academic arguments that, viewed in a vacuum, make absolute sense. Intuitively, I agree with much of what you opine. However, the market in which you invest so much faith has zero concept of nationalism or strategic interests. Total reliance upon the market means we cease to be a country. Furthermore, inasmuch as we exist in a “global economy” , your total reliance upon the market puts the US at HUGE economic disadvantage when contrasted with our global competitors who eschew market based economics in favor of varying degrees of statism.
Again, you make great points. And they’re founded in logic and reason if viewed in a vacuum. Here in reality, though, they make no sense at all. So, we’re left with the option of injecting as many market based principles into the economy/world in which we actually live.
Democrat urges unions to 'get a little bloody when necessary' - CycloneFanatic
February 23rd, 2011
12:01 pm
[...] Lies about tea party come true in Wisconsin | Kyle Wingfield The public-sector union protests continue in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states. James [...]
get out much?
February 23rd, 2011
12:32 pm
I am still waiting to hear how the Governor of Wisconsin expects to attract and retain qualified teachers by slashing salary and benefits.
JKL2
February 23rd, 2011
12:45 pm
left wing management= straw man.
To quote Animal House: fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
scrappy
February 23rd, 2011
1:20 pm
Do all native Georgian’s hate unions? As if the union is the root of all evil, causes all corporations to fail, and is a yankee only endeavor.
Also appears that your one true hatred of unions prevents you from reading and/or comprehending anything other than – unions must die.
They are protesting because they do not want to lose their right to collective barganing.
They have already agreed to pay more for benefits.
Mystified
February 23rd, 2011
1:21 pm
Workers should have every right to volunarily unionize. Just like every employer should have the right to say I’m not hiring any union members.
I’d love to see that. Somehow I believe the tune would change just a bit when non-union workers start taking over union jobs.
James West
February 23rd, 2011
1:21 pm
On the issue of violence, Mr. Wingfield gives us the following as evidence of violence:
“Blogress Ann Althouse, a state employee based in Madison, posted a video of municipal salt trucks blowing their horns in support of the unionists. A YouTube commenter responded (quoting verbatim), ‘whoever video taped this has no life and should be shot in the head.’”
What am I missing here? The person who posted the video is pro-union. The person advocating violence here appears to ANTI-union.
As far as I can tell, Winfield projected anti-union threats of violence onto union supporters in order to make his case.
Nevertheless, the arguments against violent rhetoric associated with the Tea Party has less to do with commenters on blogs and websites, and more to do with Tea Party/Republican leaders. When President Obama or Bill Clinton or Chuck Schumer or DNC leaders or union leaders start using violent imagery when talking about their political opponents the way that Steele and Palin and other Tea/Republican politicians and pundits have, then let us know. Until then, there can be no comparison.
James West
February 23rd, 2011
1:40 pm
And another thing.
Comparing the Democratic Party to “grassroots” organizations like “Americans for Prosperity” financed by the likes of Koch Industries and other major corporations is desperate.
A Democratic president and his party has every right to express support for Democratic values, Democratic politicians, and Democratic constituents at the state level. Notice that Republican apologists had no complaints when a Republican congress passed and a Republican president signed a law on behalf of Terri Schiavo to bring a state issue into the federal courts.
If most of the money was in the Republican Party, instead of corporate-funded front groups, then the national Republican Party would be putting resources into this fight too. For all we know, they already are.
Once again, we have a weak and desperate case of misdirection here. Governor Scott Walker didn’t run on killing bargaining rights for public unions and is trying to shove his unpopular union busting legislation down the throats of Wisconsin voters (to use Tea/Republican rhetoric).
They’re losing the debate on the issue of bargaining rights, big time, so Mr. Wingfield and other media pundits are trying to change the subject.
MPercy
February 23rd, 2011
1:55 pm
Left wing management @11:41 am Clearly we have fundamentally different philosophies. In my view, the claim “it is NOT the role of the government to bail people” to “pick winners”, etc. is based on an idealist view of some state of natural harmony prior to government intervention. I reject this because there is no peaceful and harmonious ’state of nature’ that government interrupts. There’s always law, authority, and some sense of justice, whether that justice is based on egalitarian notions or loyalty to a tribe or deity or whatever.
Clearly we do. However, the negation of “it is NOT the role of the government to pick winners” is “it IS the role of government to pick winners”. Which, is not quite what you implied, which seemd to be something like “if government does not pick winners and leaves it up to the market, the market will kill us all”. If you believe that government should pick winners, then there’s not going to be any talking to you.
I take a different tack. I don’t think it is the government’s role to pick winners & losers. Specifically, I don’t think that the government should use its police power (taxes, etc.) or treasury (subsidies) to provide advantages for some players over others. I believe that the “equal protection” clause means just that.
That is not to say that there is *no* role for government to play in the market. Indeed, my vision for the “free-market” includes a solid government regulatory role. This role is limited in scope, though. Primarily, the government’s role should include creating regulations that promote and enforce openness and transparency in the marketplace. I have no problem with a firm charging 47% interest, as long as that interest rate is clearly and honestly spelled out I have faith that the open market will allow me to find competitors who charge less. The government should have a strong anti-fraud role, too, but perhaps that goes to openness and transparency. The government should have a role in ensuring contracts are honored (there’s that open and transparent thing again). It should also have a role in making sure businesses cannot dump external costs onto taxpayers (I’m thinking here of dumping toxic chemicals willy-nilly vs. proper hazardous waste disposal; on the other hand, such regulations must be carefully considered, e.g. outlawing CO2 emissions outright is disruptive…everyone breaths out CO2). And there’s a role for public safety regulations, but based on current knowledge, I’m more likely to trust a UL certification than an OSHA regulation.
The notion that government somehow can be trusted to pick winners and losers ignores the notion that they can be wrong and when they are it affects millions of people and billions of dollars. Consider that even Al Gore now concedes that subsidies for ethanol production was a bad idea. Do you want a government bureaucrat deciding whether smart phones should be based on iOS or Android?
Brain
February 23rd, 2011
1:56 pm
The general debate here obfuscates the original point made by K-K-K-Kyle…..Discussing the relative merits or evils of unions isn’t the point. But, it’s exactly what the politicians want us to do. Gov Walker got the financial concessions he claims to have needed to bring the state budget into balance.
The “lie” being told here is his own….that collective bargaining is somehow intertwined with the budget debate. It is not. He’s using the public’s (justified) concern over soaring budget deficits as a fraudulent cover for busting the base of support for his largest political rivals. If he’s successful, it will be a gigantic victory for republicans in WI for some time to come.
I suspect the people of Wisconsin did not elect him so he could figure out how to tip the balance-of-power towards the GOP for the foreseeable future. They elected him so the laid-off GM employees in Janesville and the GE employees in Milwaukee and the paper companies in Menomonee (sp?) could find work in an improving economy with better fiscal fundamentals in Madison.
If this example doesn’t wake the rest of you up, I don’t know what will. Pitting left vs right and ascribing singular blame for our woes serves only the politicians. It doesn’t make your life or mine appreciably better. America better rapidly replace ideology with pragmatism , or we’re in for an exceptionally rough ride for the next 50 years. I don’t want my kids inheriting the mess we’re creating for them by not putting aside partisanship in the interest of problem-solving. We need to . Immediately.
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
2:11 pm
@Brain,
So your preference is to compete with the rest of the world knowing that their models eventually implode?
The market is billions of people all making decisions that best suit their own needs. No matter how much tinkering you attempt to do, as long as those billions have any amount of freedom in their decision making, the free markets will win.
And that is why you have such a concerted effort to limit your choices in everything you do.
MPercy
February 23rd, 2011
2:17 pm
The earlier part of that same Taranto essay in WSJ is more telling to me.
The dispute between the state government and the unions representing its employees is “about power,” Paul Krugman of the New York Times observes accurately, before going off the rails:
What [Gov. Scott] Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin–and eventually, America–less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones elaborates:
Unions are . . . the only large-scale movement left in America that persistently acts as a countervailing power against corporate power. They’re the only large-scale movement left that persistently acts in the economic interests of the middle class. . . .
The decline of unions over the past few decades has left corporations and the rich with essentially no powerful opposition. No matter what doubts you might have about unions and their role in the economy, never forget that destroying them destroys the only real organized check on the power of the business community in America. If the last 30 years haven’t made that clear, I don’t know what will.
In any case, it seems to have escaped Krugman’s and Drum’s notice that the Wisconsin dispute has nothing to do with corporations. The unions’ antagonist is the state government. “Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership,” writes Time’s Joe Klein, a liberal who understands the crucial distinction. “Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed . . . of the public?”
The “labor movement” in America has increasingly come to consist of people who work for government, not private companies. As the BLS notes, the union-participation rate for public-sector workers in 2010 was 36.2%, vs. just 6.9% for private-sector workers.
There is a fundamental difference between private- and public-sector workers. A private-sector labor dispute is a clear clash of competing interests, with management representing shareholders and unions representing workers. In the public sector, as George Will notes, taxpayers–whose position is analogous to that of shareholders–are usually denied a seat at the table:
Such unions are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself to do what it always wants to do anyway – grow. These unions use dues extracted from members to elect their members’ employers. And governments, not disciplined by the need to make a profit, extract government employees’ salaries from taxpayers. Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy “negotiations” with unions.
John Galt
February 23rd, 2011
2:23 pm
@Mpercy,
The only counterweight to big business you need is the consumer. They vote with their dollars each and every time they spend money.
Don’t like the labor practices of Nike? Do not buy their product. Don’t like how a certain company does research? Do not buy their products.
Sure, it takes effort and time on your part to do your homework. And it may even require a bit of sacrifice. But is it more of a sacrifice than $100 a month taken from you in union dues?
Left wing management
February 23rd, 2011
2:27 pm
Brian: “K-K-K Kyle”. Hilarious. That’s a good one.
MPercy:
Ok, we’re making progress. You’re right. This is about whether/to what extent critiquing one principle – govmt shall pick no winners/losers – involves supporting its opposite. But where I think we’re off on the wrong foot is that I’m making my critique from one remove, as it were. What I’m in fact saying is NOT that govmt SHALL pick winners and losers since it’s fallacious to argue that they SHALL NOT pick them. Rather, I’m saying that the dogmatic conviction that it should NOT begs the question that there could possibly be a system that is purely fair in its outcomes when left to run according to its own internal logic: i.e. the free market. I think that’s a mistake. However that does not mean that I think that the government therefore should pick winners and losers. What we find is that we’re ensnared in a radical difficulty: that of justice. And to that dilemma there are no simplistic answers. I reject libertarianism because I find it to be such an oversimplification, but I can respect people – like Ron Paul – to some degree for adhering to that to the bitter end, even when it entails making extremely unpalatable political choices (anyone with the courage of conviction to do that deserves some respect). Our country is founded on liberty, yes, but also on a certain sense of justice, which entails grappling with egalitarianism. We may not be comfortable with a socialistic understanding of that, but the concept is baked in to our country so it cannot be rooted out or disregarded for very long before it comes roaring back.