Are the Union Protesters...Us?
For two weeks now we have been watching the events in Wisconsin, the battle between the new Republican Governor Scott Walker and the public employee union. I’m sure you have heard the facts. Governor Walker wants to eliminate collective bargaining rights for everything except salaries and to have the workers pay a small portion of their health care and pension costs. He is doing this because Wisconsin is facing a huge budget deficit. Like most states, they have spent too much and part of that spending has been on what can only be described as gold-plated salary and benefit packages for public sector employees. Most of us, the ones whose hard earned money is forcibly extracted from us to pay for this union tribute can only dream of making 20 to 40% more money and having someone else pay for our health care and retirement. Support for these union whiners is low among the average taxpayer because we know we’re being fleeced.
Before you allow your indignation at the injustice of it all get you too hot under the collar, there is something we all need to consider. Are we any different? Sure, we are all upset because we think the unions and the government workers are milking the system for their own benefit but aren’t we doing the same thing? We don’t think we can afford to pay for the high salary and benefit packages for this specific group and they are upset because they have become accustomed to receiving them, they think they’re "entitled." What would our reaction be if someone suggested that the things we think we are "entitled" to from our government were cut or eliminated? I dare say that many of the same people protesting big government may take to the streets to protect the piece of the pie they think is theirs.
Consider the idea of the government pension. A government employee puts in his or her thirty or forty years of service (or even twenty in some cases) and then they retire and the taxpayer has to continue to pay them for not working for the rest of their lives! Their contribution to this system is token at best. Great deal if you can get it, right? You already do! Its called Social Security. You work until you’re sixty-five, (a bit longer than the government employee is required to but they’re special) you pay in a set amount, (again a bit more than a government employee) and then you collect taxpayer money for the rest of your life for doing nothing. Hold on a minute, you say, I paid into that, I’m just getting back what I paid in. No, you’re not. If you were, there would be no worry about Social Security going "broke" because there would be a big pot of money somewhere and in that pot would be an account with your name on it and you would get back what you paid in with a little interest. If you lived longer than your money, too bad. But no matter how long you live, the checks keep coming. Who do you think makes up the difference? Current working people.
Let me give you an example. The first person to collect social security was Ida Fuller who received her first check in 1940. She had paid in the grand total of $24.75. Her first monthly check was for $22.54! She lived to be one hundred years old, collecting $22,888 in benefits. Who paid that additional $22,886? Other people who had their hard earned money confiscated from them to support Ida for thirty-five years so she could sit in her rocking chair on the front porch. A government employee pension is just forcing one citizen to support another for the rest of his life just because he is a member of a certain class; i.e. government employees. Social Security is a government pension that forces one citizen to support another for the rest of his life just because he is a member of a certain class; i.e. old people. Forcibly confiscating money from one citizen to give it to another for any reason is morally reprehensible, yet we seem to think it is alright in some cases but not others.
TEA partiers rose up en masse last year to protest ObamaCare, but how many called for an end of all government involvement in health care? Yes, I’m talking about Medicare and Medicaid. ObamaCare, as we all know, is the first step, a giant one, toward single payer, government controlled health care. What is Medicare/Medicaid? Single payer, government controlled health care. The only difference is that Medicare and Medicaid are limited to specific groups. Sound familiar? Just as our money is confiscated from all of us to pay for the health care of a specific group; i.e. government workers, so our money is confiscated from all of us to pay for the health care of a specific group; i.e. old people and the poor. The difference is one of scope and degree, not substance. If it is acceptable for government to take money from one person to pay for another's health care for any reason, why can’t the argument be made, more consistently, that we should all have our money taken from us, put into a big pot, and used to pay for everyone’s health care; under the watchful eyes of government bean counters, of course. Socialism is all a slippery slope. Once it is acceptable to take from one to give to another for any reason, the fairest system and most consistent argument is in favor of taking from everyone according to their ability and giving to everyone according to their need.
Do you see the point? We are no different than the union protesters. The unions collude with the Democrats to extract more and more money from other people to get their benefits. What are we doing? We are colluding with politicians of both parties to extract money from other people for our benefit. In our case, we expect the government to take money from people higher on the economic ladder than we are. That is, of course, not enough. So we borrow money from our children and grandchildren. Even that is not enough. So we allow the Federal Reserve to print the remainder, putting the entire nation at risk of an economic catastrophe. As long as we get ours now, we won’t worry about tomorrow. It is immoral and irresponsible. For states that can’t print money, tomorrow has arrived and those receiving benefits are upset that it happened on their watch. Tomorrow is just about here for the Federal Government as well. We are all just a bunch of addicts, always expecting the pusher to be there with the goods. What happens when the goods are no longer there? Will we take to the streets, bellicose and irascible in our withdrawal like the government unions in Wisconsin or the people of Greece? Or will we come to the rational conclusion that the system we have perpetuated for almost one hundred years is immoral and unsustainable and return to the idea that each man in responsible for himself and his charity toward those less fortunate than himself should not be coerced. That is a moral and sustainable society. That is America.
Before you allow your indignation at the injustice of it all get you too hot under the collar, there is something we all need to consider. Are we any different? Sure, we are all upset because we think the unions and the government workers are milking the system for their own benefit but aren’t we doing the same thing? We don’t think we can afford to pay for the high salary and benefit packages for this specific group and they are upset because they have become accustomed to receiving them, they think they’re "entitled." What would our reaction be if someone suggested that the things we think we are "entitled" to from our government were cut or eliminated? I dare say that many of the same people protesting big government may take to the streets to protect the piece of the pie they think is theirs.
Consider the idea of the government pension. A government employee puts in his or her thirty or forty years of service (or even twenty in some cases) and then they retire and the taxpayer has to continue to pay them for not working for the rest of their lives! Their contribution to this system is token at best. Great deal if you can get it, right? You already do! Its called Social Security. You work until you’re sixty-five, (a bit longer than the government employee is required to but they’re special) you pay in a set amount, (again a bit more than a government employee) and then you collect taxpayer money for the rest of your life for doing nothing. Hold on a minute, you say, I paid into that, I’m just getting back what I paid in. No, you’re not. If you were, there would be no worry about Social Security going "broke" because there would be a big pot of money somewhere and in that pot would be an account with your name on it and you would get back what you paid in with a little interest. If you lived longer than your money, too bad. But no matter how long you live, the checks keep coming. Who do you think makes up the difference? Current working people.
Let me give you an example. The first person to collect social security was Ida Fuller who received her first check in 1940. She had paid in the grand total of $24.75. Her first monthly check was for $22.54! She lived to be one hundred years old, collecting $22,888 in benefits. Who paid that additional $22,886? Other people who had their hard earned money confiscated from them to support Ida for thirty-five years so she could sit in her rocking chair on the front porch. A government employee pension is just forcing one citizen to support another for the rest of his life just because he is a member of a certain class; i.e. government employees. Social Security is a government pension that forces one citizen to support another for the rest of his life just because he is a member of a certain class; i.e. old people. Forcibly confiscating money from one citizen to give it to another for any reason is morally reprehensible, yet we seem to think it is alright in some cases but not others.
TEA partiers rose up en masse last year to protest ObamaCare, but how many called for an end of all government involvement in health care? Yes, I’m talking about Medicare and Medicaid. ObamaCare, as we all know, is the first step, a giant one, toward single payer, government controlled health care. What is Medicare/Medicaid? Single payer, government controlled health care. The only difference is that Medicare and Medicaid are limited to specific groups. Sound familiar? Just as our money is confiscated from all of us to pay for the health care of a specific group; i.e. government workers, so our money is confiscated from all of us to pay for the health care of a specific group; i.e. old people and the poor. The difference is one of scope and degree, not substance. If it is acceptable for government to take money from one person to pay for another's health care for any reason, why can’t the argument be made, more consistently, that we should all have our money taken from us, put into a big pot, and used to pay for everyone’s health care; under the watchful eyes of government bean counters, of course. Socialism is all a slippery slope. Once it is acceptable to take from one to give to another for any reason, the fairest system and most consistent argument is in favor of taking from everyone according to their ability and giving to everyone according to their need.
Do you see the point? We are no different than the union protesters. The unions collude with the Democrats to extract more and more money from other people to get their benefits. What are we doing? We are colluding with politicians of both parties to extract money from other people for our benefit. In our case, we expect the government to take money from people higher on the economic ladder than we are. That is, of course, not enough. So we borrow money from our children and grandchildren. Even that is not enough. So we allow the Federal Reserve to print the remainder, putting the entire nation at risk of an economic catastrophe. As long as we get ours now, we won’t worry about tomorrow. It is immoral and irresponsible. For states that can’t print money, tomorrow has arrived and those receiving benefits are upset that it happened on their watch. Tomorrow is just about here for the Federal Government as well. We are all just a bunch of addicts, always expecting the pusher to be there with the goods. What happens when the goods are no longer there? Will we take to the streets, bellicose and irascible in our withdrawal like the government unions in Wisconsin or the people of Greece? Or will we come to the rational conclusion that the system we have perpetuated for almost one hundred years is immoral and unsustainable and return to the idea that each man in responsible for himself and his charity toward those less fortunate than himself should not be coerced. That is a moral and sustainable society. That is America.
Comments