A Wisconsin Paradox

Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 5, Wisconsin voters will go to the polls to elect a new judge to the state's supreme court for a ten year term. This election has transformed from one about a judgeship to one as a referendum on Governor Scott Walker and Republican legislators' efforts to reduce the collective bargaining power of union leadership within the State. The Senate stripped budgetary language from the bill in a maneuver to side step the quorum requirement to pass any legislation in reaction to Senate Democrats leaving the state to prevent the legislative business from progressing. The attempts to pass the legislation have sparked protests of angry demonstrators shouting, "Shame!" repeatedly at the legislators in their opposition to the bill's passage. They demonstrated on the stated grounds that this bill attacks their collective bargaining rights. Why does the election of this judge hold such relevance to this matter? Court challenges to the law on the basis of procedure will likely reach the state's supreme court, which will hand down the ultimate decision.

This ongoing saga has sparked strong language from union members about collective bargaining rights, how this bill infringes upon them. But nobody has clearly stated the meaning behind collective bargaining rights. What does it mean? What does it mean to an employee? Collective bargaining means that a group of employees may ban together, choose leadership, and bargain for their compensations with their employer. Collective rights guarantee an individual's ability to participate in this process without fear of retaliation from the employer. To become a member of such a collective, a worker must pay dues to belong to such an organization. Some states within the USA, have Right-to-Work legislation. This means that any employee may enter collective bargaining, but no such organization may compel membership. In states without this legislation, collective bargaining organizations may require that employment comes with a strict coupling of such membership, thus making the dues paid to the collective bargaining organization, i.e. a union, mandatory. Wisconsin does not have Right-to-Work legislation.

So we come to crossroads within the discussion of rights. Do mandatory union dues infringe upon the rights of an individual, or does the individual who choses to negotiate with an employer directly infringe on the rights of the collective? We find this debate far expanding outside of union membership as well. We have an ongoing national debate about whether the government may mandate an individual to purchase a health insurance product. This affects every person, whether they even chose employment associated with a union or not. And beyond health care and collective bargaining, how far should this go? Do we extend it to food products that make overweight people healthy, automobiles that motorists purchase, computing devices business use, clothing types based on cost of production, anti-perspiration products for those who ride crowded subways, birth control for those not financially stable enough to raise children, what people a businessman/woman must hire versus those it may not, etc., etc., etc.? We can make a good case for each how public policy planning could make society as a whole better for all. But we must also ask at what cost? Does it mean an individual cannot make it his or her own way. Does it quash the dreams and ambitions that transform the unimaginable into tangibles we take for granted? Does it stagnate what any one person may dream to achieve, or more simply, does it compromise an individual's ability to merely get by?

At some point, if we keep growing that list, virtually ever person who has some ambition in some facet of life will undoubtedly say such an idea goes too far. If if that person says yes for the thing he or she cares most, then why can't we work backwards from there all the way to the very last thing about which any individual may value? If 1000 employees want to join a union while one single employee does not, do we cast away the free choice of that single employee? Should he or she carry the unwanted obligation of paying for a product, union representation in Wisconsin's circumstances, for which he or she does not want?

Any person who truly values what it means to have a right can only honestly come down on one side of this decision, and that is to affirmatively say yes. If a union's leadership really has the best ideas, they will attract sufficient members to their ranks such that they can effectively bargain with an employer. If a union can't get enough of the employees to voluntarily accept membership in the organization, then it doesn't have the right ideas and questionably has the interests of the worker at heart.

The right of collectively bargaining is paradoxical to the concept of a right. By choosing not to purchase a produce, or membership in this case, infringes upon no other individual's rights. However, the impressment of an individual into such membership absolutely does.

Tomorrow's election will likely have enormous impacts on Wisconsin's collective bargaining future. Incumbent judge David Prosser has not publicly commented on the bill, but reasonable speculation concludes that he would uphold the law passed. A victory by his opponent, current state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, would tip the majority towards Left leaning judges on the court, and she has directly stated her intent to strike down the law. While Wisconsin gives us the venue of this fight, it already has will continue to play out in other parts of the nation, especially as financially strapped taxpayers will demand sacrifices from their public employees with tax revenue as their source of compensation.

Pray Prosser wins.

The Lopsided Story on Campaign Contributions

On February 18, MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow delivered a fifteen minute segment of her show dedicated to her theory of the motivations behind Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's proposed legislation to curb union benefits. Within that segment, Maddow hit on several blatant falsehoods that triggered a need to address some point well grounded in reality to which she turns a blind eye.

Watch the rant.

Falsehood #1: Wisconsin is running a surplus.

This report refutes this claim in the most lopsided of fashions: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/. Just to paraphrase, the report states, "...$258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal." This stands in stark contrast to Maddow's claim of a $137 million surplus.

Falsehood #2: The Wisconsin GOP is targeting union based PACs so that the Democrats can't get campaign money.

She enumerates the top ten political action spenders in the 2008 and 2010 elections respectively. For some reason, she lists the top five for 2008 and then the top ten for 2010. Why the inconsistency? I'll leave that to speculation. She denotes the Democrat party backing PACs as those below noted with an asterisk. She claims that if the Republican party can, "destroy," these organizations, the PACs can't fund the Democrat party. First, the Wisconsin legislation will not prevent donations from flowing to any of these organization. George Soros and Warren Buffet can still channel their billions straight into them as they please. Second, every non-asterisked PAC receives their income from voluntary donations, not compelled dues or publicly funded grants, as do the asterisked ones. Third, she blames the Citizen United case on the increase in contributions to Republican party backing PACs. By all accounts of recent polling data, the Democrat party policies of 2009 and 2010 did more to fuel contributes to these PACs. Citizens United produces documentaries that reach only a sliver of the voting population, and of those they do reach, they mostly include those who already have their political thoughts in firm opposition to the Democrat party.

2008

1. SEIU*


2. AFSCME*


3. NRA


4. Freedom Watch


5. Chamber of Commerce

2010

1. Chamber of Commerce


2. American Action Network


3. American Crossroads


4. Crossroads GPS


5. SEUI*


6. AFSCME*


7. Americans for Job Security


8. American Future Fund


9. NEA*


10. Club for Growth

Falsehood #3: The unions are the only big fish on the side of the Democrat party.

This one reflects Maddow's verbal shortfall of her monologue. 99% of the entertainment world is dominated by people who hold ultra-Left wing views. Hollywood movie themes, sitcoms, and musical artists only name a few institutions that pedal the Democrat party's philosophy. That's fine. They have every right to do so, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Next, the overwhelming majority of the news and commentary media lean far to the left. MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, and LA Times pedal a Left-wing point of view. Only FNC, the Wall Street Journal, and talk radio put up anything that doesn't follow the Left-wing line.

Final Thoughts

Let's not pretend for a second that the Democrat party powers that be don't want to attack the very institutions that fund the PACs that challenge them. They seek to bar Citizens United from exercising free speech, have appointed an FCC Chief Diversity Czar who aims to determine 100% of the radio content on air, and at one point tried to kick FNC reporters out of the White House briefing room.

Who's really doing the hit-job, here, Rachel?

Private Property vs. Public Interests

I recently attended a forum for candidates running for the local Advisory Neighborhood Council (ANC-1C) in Washington, DC this past Wednesday evening. Regular citizens who serve as ANC representatives volunteer their time and energy for no monetary compensation whatsoever to essentially lobby the DC council for the interests of their neighborhoods. The issues they tackle range from liquor licenses of local businesses to rat control to street parking matters. Their intentions are generally good, but like anyone involved in public service their actions can encroach into areas that should raise some questions. More on this further down.

This year, an Islamic group proposed to build a mosque within very close proximity of Ground Zero in New York City. This has stirred feelings of pain, anger, and sadness within the NYC community, not just because of the location of the mosque, but also because the primary financier of the mosque has made comments in the past stating that America essentially got what it deserved on 9/11. The proposed site is private property. 100% of the funds to build the mosque will have to come from private financing. The builders claim they want to demonstrate that Islam is as much a part of America as every other piece of American culture. The concept of this mosque runs through the NYC population as an unpopular idea. Some in NYC claim that Muslims have no right to build a mosque because of their strong feelings against it, but proponents have used the argument of private property to defend the planned mosque.

Now, I turn back to the ANC forum I attended on Thursday night of this past week. Several of the candidates discussed ideas for growing local small businesses in the neighborhood, a good thing in general. Small businesses have an investment in the community beyond a financial one. They serve as the largest engine for growth in the US economy. They don't export jobs. And they bring diversity to the economy that big businesses often do not. For example, near 18th St. and Columbia Rd. NW lies a Starbucks and local coffee shop called Tryst. Personally, I'd choose Tryst over Starbucks any day of the week and twice on Tuesday as a place to patronize over Starbucks. However, none of that justifies something that these ANC candidates suggested, something I find borderline appalling.

Within the neighborhood, a few businesses have closed and hence moved out of their retail rented space, leaving it open. The owners of the space, as claimed by the ANC candidates, have turned down offers to rent their space because those offers didn't reach the price they demanded. Small businesses have made such offers, but the owners have held out for better offers, offers that chain franchises could more likely fulfill. To address this, the ANC candidates proposed lobbying the city council to, "put pressure," on those owners to rent their space for less money than they choose to keep the chain franchises out of the neighborhood. They gave impassioned speeches while those in attendance cheered and applauded. They propose this with no regard for the fact that those business space owners OWN that property and have the right to rent it to whom they choose. Those owners have the obligations to their debtors, not the ANC candidates. Those owners have to put food on their own tables, not the ANC candidates.

The property rights of those retail shop space owners are no less that those of the owners of the site of the proposed "Ground Zero" mosque. In one case, the unpopularity has its roots in fear of Ialam and Shia law. In the other, the unpopularity has its roots in chain franchises changing the face of the neighborhood in a way that displeases those who live in the community. The heart of the issue, however, does not differ: private property. If proponents of Sharia Law have private property rights, so too do commercial real estate owners who want to rent to big, trendy chain franchises.

DC neighborhood communities should make such decisions based on principal, rather than personal interest alone. We can either as a society autocratically allow popular opinion to dictate what private owners must do, or we can draw limitation on how far our personal interests can encroach on private property. The overall point is this. My local ANC demonizing chain franchises while the local authorities of NYC defend proponents of Sharia Law makes for quite a disgusting contrast, but that's nonetheless what's happening now.

Rich Republicans?

It is a common knowledge that Republicans are rich and always act protecting their money. I decided to check online, and to my surprise it is the opposite, at least on the level of states: "blue" states are richer, "red" are poorer.

Maps: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/05/median_income_d.html

From http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200507110903.asp
July 11, 2005, 9:03 a.m.
Rich Republicans? By Jerry Bowyer
Not yet. The red states are still number two, and working hard for a living.

The notion that the GOP is the party of the rich simply doesn’t match the economic reality.

States with the highest per capita income trend Democrat; the states with the lowest per capita income trend Republican. The top ten “blue states,” for example, had an average per capita personal income of $36,327, which is 20 percent higher than the top ten “red states,” which had an average of $30,275.

****************************************************

Isn't it interesting? I even found a blog that discussed why Republicans are so stupid that being poor they vote Republican. It was a bit of provocation, not abusive.

So, perception is everything. We have to change it, and there are many ways. Hope we can work on it after elections. If we find ways that correspond with our interests and talents, it will be fun. My dream is to have Youtube channel. This is a beauty of America where anything is possible.

Another interesting economic analisis on stimulus:
http://mercatus.org/publication/stimulusfacts

Congressional maps and charts http://www.fairdata2000.com/Congressional/

And next report is simply outrageous. Stimulus as a pay-off from Democratic government to it supporters? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Report-Stimulus-funds-not-targeted-to-states-that-need-jobs-79530417.html

Report: Democratic districts received nearly twice the amount of stimulus funds as GOP districts By: Mark Hemingway 12/16/2009

A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.

“You would think that if the stimulus money was actually spent to create jobs, there would be more stimulus money spent in high unemployment states,” said Veronique de Rugy, a scholar at the Mercatus Center who produced the analysis. "But we don't find any correlation."

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia is one of the nation's most respected economic and regulatory think tanks and has a Nobel prize-winning economist on staff. The econometric analysis was done using data provided by Recovery.gov -- the government website devoted to tracking the stimulus data -- as well as a host of other government databases.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Report-Stimulus-funds-not-targeted-to-states-that-need-jobs-79530417.html#ixzz0zwsuZZsC

Affordable housing

To educate the public on something that I learned today.

I'm looking for a way to escape from de-facto rent increase - I'd have to pay $110 utilities a month in addition to my $1412 rent for 1 BR apartment. It will put a strain on my budget (candidates can use this example for debates). I've got a suggestion today from a woman whose daughter applied and received approval for Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Program http://www.rockvillemd.gov/residents/MPDU/.

As everything that is government, it doesn't explain clearly the requirements (otherwise where all mediators/gov employees would work?), but from what I understood, there are different income requirements for Rockville and MD as a whole. Not a big difference, but I think I qualify for MD and am too rich for the town of Rockville to take an advantage of this program.

If you want to read not very emotional but very factual research it is below. I'll make quoted text in a different color; bold and underline will be mine to draw your attention.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dhctmpl.asp?url=/content/dhca/housing/housing_p/mpdu/mpdu_rental_program.asp

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM AND ITS REQUIREMENTS

A Home You Can Afford (...) A goal of the Montgomery County Housing Policy states that affordable housing should be available to people of all incomes. To help achieve this goal, the County Council passed the Moderately Priced Housing (MPH) Law in 1974. A provision of the MPH Law requires that between 12.5% and 15% of the houses in new subdivisions of 20 or more units be moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs). The MPH Law requires that 40% of the MPDUs be offered to the Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) and other non-profit housing agencies for use by low and moderate income families.

Included in the MPDU program are detached and semi-detached homes (duplexes), townhouses, garden condominiums and high-rise condominiums and apartments. Under the present sales price limits, a three bedroom townhouse has a sales price of approximately $165,000. Sales prices and rental limits are reviewed annually and are revised to reflect changes in construction costs.

Click here for more information about the MPDU Rental Program. Click here for more information about the MPDU Purchase Program.

My comments. HOC has lower requirements for income to qualify and must have lower rental prices.

My question about affordable housing should be available to people of all incomes. Why? We are not talking about people living on a street in a need of shelter, it is about AFFORDABLE housing. Why?

For Rockville http://www.rockvillemd.gov/residents/MPDU/
What are the current maximum income limits?

• 1 person family $43,500
• 2 person family $49,700
• 3 person family $55,900
• 4 person family $62,100
• 5 person family $67,100

I'm too rich to apply. Another comment - my friends in Brooklyn who had about 55K a year for 3 of them (only father works), and now $62K (at the best, not always) for 4 on same conditions bought a new car for $20K and property in their native country, without any illegal activity. My friend is very frugal, cooks at home, buys clothes on sale in GAP and Marshall's, takes advantages of very cheap Brooklyn prices. They have 2 big TVs, digital toys for the whole family, fly to Europe every year, older son is in college on merit earned scholarship. They never lived in affordable housing and don't plan. Why somebody else should? Because they want to eat out every day, take a taxi and have no idea how to save on sales?

Now, more about MD program. http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dhctmpl.asp?url=/content/dhca/housing/housing_p/mpdu/mpdu_rental_program.asp

MPDU Rental Program

• Montgomery County's Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Program offers affordable rents at a number of MPDU apartment complexes located throughout the County. (...)
  
• Click here for a list of MPDU rental complexes
  Please look under the column entitled "Vacancies (BM)" which lists Below Market (BM) rate apartments, such as MPDUsplease call the apartment complex directly at the phone number listed.
  
• DHCA no longer provides applications and no longer issues Certificates of Eligibility for MPDU rentals.

Are You Eligible? (All incomes are gross household income; that is, household income before taxes)

• Minimum annual household income is $30,000.
• Maximum annual household income (effective May 14, 2010):
  

Household Size	Maximum Income-- Garden Apartments	Maximum Income-- High Rise Apartments
1	$47,000	$50,500
2	$54,000	$58,000
3	$60,500	$65,000
4	$67,500	$72,500
5	$72,500	$78,000

You must:

have at least as many people in your household as the number of bedrooms in the apartment;
demonstrate a good credit rating that is acceptable to the apartment management; and
be able to afford the monthly rent payments for the MPDU rental property.

Hurray! Anywhere but Rockville I still can use somebody's money to help me to rent an apartment at cheaper price. Ain't it nice?

DO YOU THINK THAT SOMEBODY WHO MAKES BEFORE TAXES FROM 47K TO 50.5K NEEDS HELP TO RENT AN APARTMENT BELOW MARKET PRICE? DO YOU WANT TO ELECT PEOPLE WHO WILL STOP IT?

If this opportunity is available, why somebody wouldn't use it? People don't think that money to support such programs make our deficit grow, and children of those who enjoy now ease of life will pay heavily. And if I look around and see that my friends (even if some make more than I?) take advantage of paying $1028 a month instead of $1412 as I do now, how long can I hold on my principles? If they have $300 a month more to spend, it is hard for me to compete with them. What if I say "everybody does it, and it is legal"? What does it do to the spirit of fairness and the drive to achieve?

I hope that candidates can use this information to show that erosion of ethics goes on all levels. My question is - how many will vote for those who oppose these programs?

Leadership Defined in the Gulf

After two months of BP's deep water well still leaking oil, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has been working himself to the bone to stop or even just slow the oil from encroaching on his state's shorelines and clean up the oil already washing up there. At every turn, the federal government and Barack Obama have thwarted his efforts. It's one thing for the administration's cold indifference to the consequences of this spill, but it's sinks to a rotten level when it stands in the way of cleanup and prevention and then uses the tragedy to push their anti-domestically obtained fossil fuel agenda.

Listen to Jindal. You can here the passion and sincerity in the tone of his voice. His words aren't rolling off a teleprompter. They are genuine and the signs of real leadership, the signs of someone who has executive experience.

link: Governor Jindal speaking on talk radio

Racism and Obama

A few months ago, I heard a commentator accuse President Barack Obama of being a racist. While I've shared many views with said commentator, I considered this statement far over the top. The basis of that accusation sat on the fact that the stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) Obama signed into law required that all funds spend only went to organizations that satisfied racial quotas. This means that any business applying for work paid from stimulus funds that did not satisfy this requirement had no eligibility to earn such contracts. I don't agree with the basic premise of affirmative action as I view it as mostly counter-productive to its supporters' intent, but I've never thought of such an idea as racist because I believe the motivation stems from sincere efforts to help the disadvantaged, misguided as I view it.

Further along into Obama's term, I have taken notice of some particular events, each on their own warranting acknowledgement. I'll catalog these in chronological order.

First, on election day 2008, a group of members of the New Black Panthers stood outside of a polling station in Philadelphia, PA holding nightsticks using the racial slur, "cracker," in their words of intimidation to scare white people away from the polling station. The Department of Justice (DOJ) took up the case shortly thereafter.

In May of 2009, President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. He declares the need for the court to have increased diversity in its representation in the form of race and gender. Sotomayor's past includes membership in La Raza ("The Race"), a race-based interest organization, and comments that a latina woman can better reach some decisions than others. Justice has blindness to race, wealth, background, and demographics. Justice means equal and fair application of the law. Anything else is not justice.

In July of 2009 Harvard professor Henry Gates encountered a policeman visiting his home in response to a call from a concerned neighbor. Gates, feeling as though the visit amounted to an unnecessary intrusion and spoke belligerently towards the officer while invoking a racial tone. The arresting officer is a white man, and Professor Gates is a black man. After Gates' language escalated to a level that the officer found inappropriate and disrespectful of a policeman, the officer arrested Gates. I don't know the exact exchange that happened between the two; only their respective recounts and those of witnesses paint the picture. I suspect that the officer didn't really need to arrest Gates and could have simply left the scene in due course, but I only speculate. At Obama's next press conference, one of the press pool members asked a planted question about the Gates incident. (If you don't think that question was planted, you really were born yesterday.) Obama, despite not even knowing much about the incident as he later admitted, immediately lashed out at the officer by saying that the police acted, "stupidly." The scenario culminated with Gates and the officer having a beer at the White House in a gesture of making up with one another at the invitation of President Obama.

Only a matter of weeks later Lionel McIntyre, a Columbia University black, male professor, was engaged in a political argument in a Harlem bar with a white, female Columbia University employee working under him. In the moment of a heated exchanged, he punched her in the face, and the police arrested him. Obama made no reference to the matter at all despite the fresh tone of racial tension just set by the Gates arrest.

During the town hall protests against proposed health care legislation in August of 2009 in Missouri, a black man named Kenneth Gladney stood outside of the town hall event selling flags that read, "Don't Tread on Me," with the image of a coiled snake. The symbols has its roots in the anti-tax attitude of the American colonists towards their British rulers. Many have today invoked that image to show opposition to increased government control (in areas such as health care) and high taxes. Upon seeing this, a group of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members spotted Gladney and physically assaulted him, beating him down onto the concrete sidewalk. Obama has strong support from SEIU in money and campaigning manpower, and throughout his Presidential campaign declared their agenda as his agenda. Obama makes no mention of Gladney.

In October of 2009, President Obama signs racial hate speech legislation into law. He makes no mention of the New Black Panthers at the polling station nor any mention of Kenneth Gladney.

In July of 2010, the US Commission on Civil Rights called formal DOJ official J. Christian Adams to testify at a hearing. His testimony revealed that the DOJ under Obama had aggressively suppressed any action against the New Black Panther members who intimidated voters at the Philadelphia polling station. The DOJ dropped the charges reported because the members promised they wouldn't wield nightsticks at polling stations...UNTIL 2012! One of these members has gone so far as to preach in public that blacks need to kill, "cracker," to be free. He says blacks need to, "kill white babies!"

Also in July of 2010, Obama praised the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) for years of service. Byrd joied a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act at the age of 47 years old.

President Obama has a biracial background, but simply having a particular background doesn't exonerate behavior. Each person defines their character by their actions. Racism is prejudice or discrimination against people because of their race. Some in the media have tried to reclassify racism as something only people in power can exhibit. Obama's actions combined with certain inaction meets both of these criteria. His actions prop up one group of people at the behest of others, based on race.