Thursday, December 29, 2011

Retirement, get yours now, they are going fast.

Our generation will be the one to get screwed royally. The end of the baby boom will not see a dime of the money we put into Social security. Our parents will have their retirement but will not be able to leave us anything, as they are getting the shaft also. And the next generation will simply say to us, "Screw you, the government stole your money, do you really expect us to help you out, why don't you just up and die already." They won't pay for our retirement (like we paid for our ancestors) because they will not have a social security plan to pay into, they will have to fund their own retirements. So if our country survives this economic turmoil, they will have their retirement because it was necessary for them to plan ahead.

So where does that leave my generation? Working until we die, we are the screwed generation. Those retiring now can live out their lives in leisure, spending the money that the politicians stole from our generation. That leaves us high and dry, withering away without any hope of leisure in our later life. To you I say "Thanks a lot for thinking of your kids and grand-kids. Now we get to pay for your life of theft from us."

And does anyone really think the next generation, our kids and grand-kids will just chip in to allow us to rest, after decades of hard work? Does anyone really think this will happen? Anyone naive enough to hold onto that idea? They are going to have their hands full with saving and investing for their own retirement, and they will have earned it by themselves.

I have also worked and saved and invested and the government has stolen everything, and now they also want to simply take (without my permission) my 401k plan money, because they it need to fund their massive deficit. We are so screwed. My social security was used to pay back the friends of the a**holes in DC, and what little I could manage to gather instead of their plan, will be stolen from me as well; without even a thank you.

So, Mom and Dad, enjoy your last few years remembering that I will probably never get to see anything like it. Just think about this, I will probably be working nearly full-time until well into my 80's or 90's, and one day just not call or come into work because.....I am dead. I don't like where my future is heading. I am not blaming my parents, they earned their social security, they earned their retirement. But so did I, and mine was stolen from me by Washington DC and their pals, I will end up having to pay twice for something I will never see.

Is anyone else depressed?

Thursday, December 22, 2011

How do you define compassion?

The next time a progressive calls you greedy try this argument. How compassionate is it to take resources from a worker and give it to those who do not work. Notice I didn't say those who "cannot" work. There are jobs available. McDonalds is hiring, but most people who are unemployed will not take that job because they somehow feel the job is beneath them.

The Bible says if a man will not work, he should not eat. Notice it doesn't say if a man cannot work. It is not about ability or aptitude, it is about will. If a man chooses not to work because he can get more resources from not working, then we have the problem with entitlement. How compassionate is it to let a man take from the resources of others who contribute, when he is able to contribute himself, but refuses to? That is not compassion that is greed, and it is happening all the time with the current poor.

Many of them are poor because that is the path they have chosen. The welfare mom who keeps popping out babies to increase her monthly allotment from the workers while giving nothing back to the world. The OWS protesters who have college degrees but will not work for a company that doesn't give them a six figure salary. The union laborer who demands a larger salary and extreme benefits packages while the taxpayers cut corners and scrimp and save to put money away for a retirement that they may never be able to afford. The illegal alien who takes cash payouts with no paper trail and pays nothing in taxes, and has children born on our soil only so he can claim citizenship for his child.
All of these are a drain on our society, and this is what God was saying when he said a man who will not work should not eat.

So the progressive will pull out the whole compassion argument at this point. "How can you be so greedy and not share with those who aren't able to work?" But I made sure to point out this is for the man who chooses not to work, not those who through some physical or mental incapacity cannot work. The system itself is broken, because some think that it is our responsibility to take care of everyone. But how compassionate is a system that takes what someone has duly earned through hard work and gives it to someone who refuses to work?

So then the, "But through no fault of their own, they cannot find a job." diatribe will come out. If they are willing to take a job that makes less than they feel they are worth, then I have no problem helping them out. But if they refuse to work because they think a job is beneath them (can you hear me OWS?) than once again; how compassionate is it to take from the hard working individual to give to those who will not work?

"But you have greater advantage, these people have so much more to overcome to get a decent job." Oh really, so the fact that I had to work for $.50 per hour take home, after paying for child care is good enough for me but not for thee, then I have no compassion for those who think minimum wage is not enough. Work is not a guarantee, it is a privilege. Many more people need to realize that they are not "owed" a job; you need to work for it, and work hard for it, especially if you want the six-figure salary.

My contention is that it is actually harmful to just allow people to scrounge off the hard work of others. It disincentives work and removes the sense of self-worth people need to feel good. The whole movement of equalizing outcomes is harmful to the nation and the people, it makes work anathema. If you don't get to keep the fruits of your labor, what reason is there to work? This is not compassion, it is actually more harmful to the people to let them continue to sponge off of society.

The solution is not an easy one, for the most part people believe that they are entitled to a living; whether that be through a job, where there is no need to actually work hard, or to an entitlement program where they need not work either. So how do we again instill a sense of worth to employment? I don't know if there is anyway to do it other than to rip the band-aid off in one quick rip. Yes it will hurt in the short run, but we have to do it. We have a whole segment of society that will scream at the top of their lungs, but if we are to have any compassion, we need to do it fast and we need to do it soon.

No more kicking the can down the road. No more false compassion.

Monday, December 19, 2011

How to fix Congress, we need it now more than ever!


I know it's been around before but someone might have missed it, so please send it out again. We really need some action!!!

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure. We are asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

It should have been done in 2011 but wasn't!

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Social Security. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Retirement Plan. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Pay Raises: Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Healthcare: Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Law of the Land. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. Past & Present Contracts. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time? THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Obama who?

WHERE ARE THE OBAMA GIRLFRIENDS? I hadn't thought about this - but where are Obama's past girlfriends surely he had at least one? No past girl friends popping up anywhere? Strange - strange to the point of being downright weird! OK, this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side. Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who know every little tidbit about every other president (and their wives) that even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace, or Truman played the piano. We are Americans!
Our media vets these things out! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow man.' We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. Honestly, and this is a personal thing... but it's bugged me for years that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. Taken his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity. We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurysms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton- we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House? Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or "What a great dancer!"
Now look at the rest of what we know... no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Check for groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony.Has anyone talked to the professors? Isn't it odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him. When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president provides the public with all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released? Nada - other than what was in this so-called biography! And experts who study writing styles etc. claim it was not O's own words or typical of his speech patterns, etc.
Does this make any of you wonder? Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. This should really be a cause for great concern.
Did you see the movie titled, The Manchurian Candidate? Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face... someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. Even George questions why no one has acknowledged that the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos was a classmate of Obama at Columbia-class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him. Since he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records? Do you like millions of others, simply assume all this is explainable - even though no one can?
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA. Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but not one remembers him. For example,Wayne Allyn Root was (like Obama) a political science major at Columbia , who graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a single classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER! Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that.. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him." At our 20th class reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack!
And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York , 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him." Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia , provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia . How can this be? NOTE: Wayne Allyn Root can easily be verified. He graduated valedictorian from his high school, Thornton- Donovan School , then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the same '83 class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was. Some other interesting questions.
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002? Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order? According to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama - but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.. WHAT!? The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived. No wonder all his records are sealed! Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school... before he "reorganized" Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.
One of the biggest CONS this country has ever seen, and getting away with it. This is scary on many levels! He's the most dishonest deceiving liar to ever darken the White House,,,,,,,,,borrowed, original author unknown.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

We conservatives need to stop allowing the left to determine who our candidate will be, we need to stop believing that the "perfect" candidate is out there and start supporting the candidates we have. Shame on you for allowing the left to use baseless allegations and slander to derail a campaign, we need to realize that we are all humans, and there is no one that is perfect and start defending him (and all our candidates) and stop throwing them to the wolves when the left gets the urge to smear them. One more thing, the dems are quick to defend their own, but we are even quicker to throw our candidates under the bus; which side would you rather be on? You conservatives who are ready to drop Herman Cain, SHAME ON YOU, grow a pair and start learning how to defend conservativism.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

This is what Democracy looks like

Our Founding Fathers did a lot of careful and deep contemplation when drawing up our Constitution, and determined that the best form our government should take was a Representative Republic. The protesters keep insisting that we have a Democracy. Democracy in its purest forms is simply rule by a simple majority, so 51% of the population get to make the rules for the other 49%. This is what Democracy looks like. Lets see how this plays out.

We the 51% decide that all gays and lesbians get no rights at all, they only represent 10% of the population. We the 51% say no rights, period that's it. This is what Democracy looks like.

We the 51% of the population decide that labor unions will all be dissolved, they have no more voice, no more power no more money. Labor unions are only 7% of the population. We the 51% have the majority, no more labor unions, that's it period. This is what Democracy looks like.

We the 51% decide that women are too emotional to make political decisions, so they shouldn't be able to vote. The new law takes effect immediately. We the 51% have spoken, that's it period. This is what Democracy looks like.

We the 51% decide that only white male land-owners get to vote; no blacks, no Hispanics, no women, no minorities. We are the majority, 51% that's it period. This is what Democracy looks like.

We the 51% decide the only Christians and Jews can be citizens, no Muslim, no atheist, no Hindu, no Buddhist, no Wiccan. We are the majority 51%, that's it no reprieve, period. This is what Democracy looks like.

We the 51% decide that special interest groups do not get any special rights, no gay marriage, no equal opportunity, no affirmative action, no diversity. That's it period, we the 51% have spoken. This is what Democracy looks like.

Democracy is a very problematic society. For that reason the Founding Fathers didn't give us a Democracy. So many people who are protesting right now would simply lose their privilege to protest. Do you really want to know what Democracy looks like?

Open season on unarmed citizens

What is so horrible about guns that has the liberals all up in arms over concealed carry? I just don't get it.
I stand before you unarmed, am I a danger? NO
Okay I strap on a gun and stand before you armed, am I a danger? NO
If I was not a dangerous person before I strapped on my gun, why would the gun make me a dangerous person? This is where the liberals get lost. The gun is not going to jump out of my holster and shoot you itself. Nor will it grab my hand and put my finger on its trigger. The liberals just simply cannot conceive of a law-abiding citizen carrying a weapon for personal protection. The guns are not the problem, the problem are the criminals, and simply carrying a gun doesn't make a person a criminal.
As much as they hate the second amendment, it is the only thing standing between their bleeding hearts and bleeding to death. Cities all over the state are quickly pushing through laws to restrict where law-abiding citizens can carry weapons. WHY? This is ludicrous. Why don't they just put up a sign saying "open season on unarmed citizens here"? The only people these signs are going to stop are the law-abiding type, the ones who could stop a criminal from going postal in one of these off-limit places.
I feel less safe going into any of the posted business or government facilities than any where else on the face of the planet, except maybe in an aircraft, because there will be no one to stop a potential threat. So liberals think long and hard, the Gabrielle Giffords incident was an act of a deranged kook with a gun, wouldn't you have been more comfortable if the whole crowd could have fought back and stopped the criminal? Or are you ready for more Gabrielle Gifford moments?
I for one will be avoiding any business or government facility where I cannot protect myself from the deranged kooks. And secondly, I will be working to get the signs removed from these places so law-abiding citizens can exercise their Constitutional rights.
And remember, the guns are not the problem, the problem are criminals and an unarmed population. The criminals, not the guns, are slavering over who to choose as their next victim.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Black Pastor Sues Obama & Democratic Party for Racism – Patriot Update

Black Pastor Sues Obama & Democratic Party for Racism – Patriot Update

The Democratic Party has historically been the party of segregation and hate, so why do they now claim to speak for the African American people? And more importantly, why do the African American people let them get away with it? The education system has done a great job of reeducating the poor who cannot afford a private education. Margaret Sanger would be so proud (in case you don't know, she was also a eugenicist who wanted to decrease the black population through the use of birth control and abortion). The Democrats need to own their history, and it is rife with racism. I wonder how the Reverend Al and Jesse can even stand themselves, do they realize they are delivering their people into the hands of the executioner?

Saturday, August 20, 2011

I need my happy pills

I believe we are experiencing the repercussions of the culture of pharmaceutical solutions to everyday problems.

First a little background. Life is a series of good times and not-so-good times.

We all experience rough patches in our lives. This is not new, it has been going on since man first breathed. Early man used the bad times to their advantage to grow and learn from mistakes. Societies were built and destroyed, and each time a lesson was learned; not during the times of celebration and excess, but during the lean times when difficulties needed to be overcome through persistence. Rome was not built in a day, the saying goes, nor did it fall overnight. Our founding fathers knew what it was to experience tough times, the first colony in the new world experienced the loss of roughly half its population due to the hardships of climate and disease.

But times have changed. We no longer want to experience the growing pains. We pharmaceutical away the hard times. Too many people are just popping a pill to feel better. I have some experience in this area, first I work in a pharmacy, I see first hand the abuse of medications. Okay before you call be a hypocrite, there are legitimate uses for medications, I am not advocating against pharmaceuticals, only the excessive use of mostly psychological medications that are meant to "even out the mood".

When some people hit a rough patch, they go to the doctor and get all weepy and depressed and claim that their lives are the worst and will never get better, so they need to pop a pill. This is doing horrendous things to our society, and world at large. There is no need to persist in something that is viewed as difficult anymore, there is no need to bear up against a burden, there is no need to work hard against all odds to achieve. All you need is to take this pharmaceutical and it will make everything better, too many people have fallen into this trap.

My graciousness, the number of young kids on ADHD drugs is staggering, and they don't just need them for school. Parents pick the drugs up even during the summer, when a kid should be outside, playing and using their excess, pent-up energy. We are medicating the difficulty out of raising kids, the job is not supposed to be easy; just give the kids his Ritalin and let them zone out so we parents can get a break. Give me a break, kids are supposed to teach US lessons, we are supposed to be the parent, it is not supposed to be easy. Life is not supposed to be easy.

Along this same line, why is the school system demanding that kids get medication if they are not attentive in the classroom? Believe it or not, the reason we hired the teachers in the first place is to teach the kids, not give their students piles of paper to fill out while the teachers just watch over them. That is something I could do just as easily at home, so why should we even send our kids to school in the first place? If your child's teacher is demanding you get your kid on drugs, you need to find a new teacher, the kid is not the problem.

Secondly, I had a friend who was not stable. She needed medications to function (see I am not against pshych meds). I never once advocated for her to get off her meds. I saw first hand how a person may need the medications. I saw how others in the church reacted to her medications, and how she reacted when she was persuaded to stop taking the meds. There are legitimate uses for medications. We have patients who come into our pharmacy that legitimately need their meds, and who can become belligerent and uncontrollable when they are not taking their medications properly.

We also have patients come in to fill their "happy pills". Oh good grief, have we gotten so bad that we cannot allow ourselves to be sad at times? College kids are taking highly-addicting sedatives to help them do better on tests, in fact, more of these drugs are sold during finals week than at any other time of the year. Our pharmacy has been experiencing a shortage of these type of medications, and these college kids just flip out, claiming they "need" their medication. What they really need is to do some studying.

If you really think about it most of our problems as a society are centered around the whole not- wanting-to-do-something-hard mind set. We HAD to raise the debt ceiling because it would be too hard to cut spending. We had to extend unemployment benefits because it would be too hard to make someone find a new way to feed himself. We had to create a social services safety net because it would be too hard for some people. We had to make abortion legal because it was too hard on women to carry a child to term and give the child up for adoption. We had to recall the Senators in Wisconsin because it will be too hard for union members to pay for their own benefits. We have to "tax the rich" because it is too hard to let people suffer who cannot earn as much as someone else.

Our society is sick, and the last thing we need is more self medication. We must either again experience hardships or our country is doomed. Simply put, we cannot afford to look past the hard times anymore. My fiancée has a song he likes, the lines are: "there ain't no way but the hard way, so get used to it."

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Wisconsin's leaky sink

Here is an analogy that might make things clearer.

I have a sink that has sprung a leak, it is leaking water all over, gallons upon gallons and nothing stops it. I call a plumber to fix the leak, but my kids don't like having someone else come into the house to do the work, some get upset. Of my 33 kids, 14 of them decide they are going to prevent the other 19 from getting the leak fixed by running away with the plumbers tools, nothing can get done without those tools. They stay away for weeks, and threaten to never return.
Finally my 19 kids decide they will work around the impasse caused by the 14 runaways and give the plumber a tool that he can work with and fix the leak; not quite the same tool, and not as effective, but it will help.
When the 14 runaways hear about the fix they return, and now they are incensed that somehow the plumber was given the tools needed to plug the leak and stop the unnecessary wasting of water. Now they have gotten a bunch of their friends to threaten violence and intimidate the 19 kids who stayed home and tried to find a solution for the leak. They have also started making trouble for them in their own homes, so their families would see how "mean" they were, for stopping the leak, and get rid of them.
Even some members of the families of the 14 runaways decided that maybe it wasn't for the good of all to have them try to throw a monkey wrench into the leak problem by running away with the plumbers tools. A lot of the family members decided to give the plumber some extra tools to help keep the leak plugged and not allow the 14 runaways and their friends to cause the repair to fail. Now the rift between my 33 kids and the plumber has gotten out of hand, not only are my 14 kids fighting against the 19, but they are also threatening the plumber with all kinds of sanctions. Even so far as trying to get some other states plumbers money to prevent the plumber from doing anymore work on the leak.
And why all the commotion? Because they wanted the sink to keep leaking, they liked the leak, because they could get all the water they wanted from the leak; and now that the leak is temporarily fixed they have to use the faucet to get their water. They don't like using the faucet. Using the faucet means they have to do some work, and they have to turn it off when they are finished getting their drink. They would much rather have the water running constantly and aplenty so they don't have to be responsible.

Cast of characters:
14 Runaway kids: Wisconsin's Democratic Senators
19 Stay at home kids: Wisconsin's Republican Senators
Runaways friends: Unions, protesters, Democratic Assembly, Mainstream Media,
The plumber: Scott Walker
The Leak: the Budget of Wisconsin
The Narrator: The people of Wisconsin

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

We The Stupid

We The Stupid

What kind of nation will our children be living in? As long as obama can keep us fighting each other we will be too occupied to fight him. Class warfare is just the beginning.

Monday, August 1, 2011

EXCLUSIVE: Source Reports Wisconsin Jobs Now! Engages in Illegal Election Behavior | Media Trackers

EXCLUSIVE: Source Reports Wisconsin Jobs Now! Engages in Illegal Election Behavior | Media Trackers

But the liberals are extremely PO'd about disenfranchising people who don't have an ID card, maybe they could get some drivers to take people to the DMV to get their ID cards so they can vote, instead of helping people break the law by paying them to vote. They continue to amaze me at how low they will stoop while pointing fingers at conservatives for even thinking of putting ringers into a protest. Come on already!!!

Patriot Proclamation

I don't know who wrote this, but I had to keep it and share it.

Patriot Proclamation
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to replace the politicians who have failed to properly govern our nation, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to this action.
We remind all that we still hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created Equal, and that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. However, when those in power become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to replace them, to alter the system by which they are chosen, and to institute a new process that is more likely to secure our Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that processes long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations persist, it is our right and our duty to throw out such leaders, and to provide new guards for our future.
Such has been the patient sufferance of We the American People; and such is now the necessity which compels us to alter the process by which our leaders are chosen. The history of the present and recent politicians is a history of repeated malfeasance and usurpations, all having directly or indirectly established an absolute control over We the People. To prove this, let these facts be submitted to a suffering nation:

The politicians have continuously ignored our Constitution, trampling the rights of the States and the people.
The politicians have completely destroyed the concept of equality, dividing the nation into countless factions in order to garner political support.
The politicians have criminally refused fiscal responsibility, incurring debts and obligations designed to enslave our posterity in the cruelest of ways.
The politicians have repeatedly failed our children by blindly supporting a failing, and in places, inept education system.
The politicians have blatantly abused our citizens with a ridiculously complex and intrusive tax code.
The politicians have consistently championed political correctness instead of making the difficult decisions that wisdom demands.
The politicians have cunningly rigged the election process so that the vast majority of incumbents are re-elected despite an overwhelming disapproval of their work.
Too many politicians have routinely ignored our Creator.

We have warned them from time to time, with correspondence of every kind, but they have been deaf to the voice of reason. We must, therefore, rally the members of this nation and peacefully replace those who have ashamedly usurped power that belongs to the States and the people.
We, therefore, as dutiful spokesmen for citizens all across America, hereby request that every patriot in this country join the GOOOH movement and help select a new slate of independent citizen representatives who will serve the people of their district.
For the good of this nation, and for the future of all who will follow, with a firm reliance on Divine Providence, we respectfully sign this Proclamation and mutually pledge to our fellow countrymen our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Who defines price gouging?

Here are some numbers for you to consider. I buy a bottle of water at a convenience store, it costs $.99, the actual costs are much less, but how much less. I can buy the same bottle of water and 23 more for around $3 to $4 in the grocery store, but consider they also pay less for the water bottle than I am charged for it, usually about 50% less. So the cost to the produce the same bottle of water is less than $.08. Consider that mark up. Now imagine that same bottle of water at a ball game, $4, the mark up is enormous.

So why do we not hear about how horrible it is that "big water" is making a profit on the backs of the poor? Why don't we hear that "big grocery" is price gouging? And why does the base ball team get a pass?

The problem is we pick and choose who we want to vilify, how bad is "big oil", or "big pharma" but not a peep about "big soft drinks"? Our economic system allows for supply and demand to determine price, but yet how often do we hear about how the oil companies are making too much money, and how the pharmaceutical companies are charging too much for the miracle medications that they discovered? Our country is full of whiners and ingrates who want everything for nothing.

Is there any hope of a return to sanity? I am not sure.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

What part of NO don't you understand?

We the Bank of America (i.e. the taxpayers) say no we will not increase your credit limit. You have not wisely spent the trillions of dollars we have already loaned you, what makes you think we can trust you with even more money. You have reached your credit limit, that is all there is to it. You can either stop spending so much borrowed money, or you can default, the choice is yours. The answer is NO.

I am also tired of everything being a "crisis" in the eyes of the Democrats. Oh for crying out loud, first it was global warming, then health care, and now the debt ceiling. It is not a crisis, you just don't want to be responsible so you make it look like the responsible party, the people who are saying no, are nothing but a bunch of party poopers who don't want to give you what you want. Suck it up, stop the temper tantrum already. SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU!

We saw a huge temper tantrum in Wisconsin this spring, the unions were all over the place with their "Walker=Hitler" signs, the "F**k Walker" signs and all kinds of Communist slogans marching on the Capitol square. So what has happened? Why hasn't the world ended already, collective bargaining was the holy grail. The schools were going to implode, the teachers were going to get shafted and end up on the streets, the unions were going to dissolve in to piles of liquid goo, patients were going to be piled three or four to a room, and nobody was going to get their meds.

Well guess what, none of this has happened. The world goes on, in fact, of the 18,000 new jobs created in the United States this last month, 9500 or so were in Wisconsin. So unions, how is that drumming working out for you? How is "recall Walker" going to bring jobs back? Guess what, the jobs are coming back because of Walker's budget, even though you think all he did was give tax breaks to the rich. So the rich just decided out of the goodness of their hearts to hire people this last month? The companies that are hiring are doing this because they feel the pain of the unemployed and want to contribute to society. NOPE!

They are hiring because the climate to hire is more positive here in Wisconsin, they don't need to worry about taxes being raised so they can now use some of the capital they were sitting on due to the uncertainty of taxes and use it to hire some new people. That is how capitalism works, that is how profit motive works, that is how private industry works. And guess what, when private industry works, so do private industry employees who consequently are paying the taxes that pay your sorry a** wages.

Maybe someday you will also be able to grow up and become mature adults who pay their own way instead of demanding that someone else sacrifice so you can live high on the hog. The government unions have become the bane to society that was predicted so many years ago, by none other than FDR.

This video explains it so well.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Sunday, June 12, 2011

The unions are disgusting!

They don't want to offend the special olympians? But they have no shame and no respect for anyone. When will the people of Wisconsin wake up and realize that the unions do NOT have their best interest at heart?

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

How to fight a fire without corporate influence

At the beginning of the fight over the collective bargaining privilege, there were calls from the leftists to try to live in this world without government influence, with that they meant to cow us into admitting the government workers are necessary and are worth their weight in gold. Thus, unless we ordinary taxpayers wanted to forgo the use of the police or the fire department or streets, then we should simply shut up and take our medicine. And then the whole argument sunk to the depth of the Koch brothers hatred and calls for boycotts of the companies that refuse to show support for the unions. Now we are getting the usual screech to "tax the rich" and by the rich, they mean the corporations like the Koch's own. So lets use their age old argument and see where it leads.

The unions members hate corporations, so much so they want them to give up all their profits to the union employees, if it isn't in the employees pockets, it doesn't count. So the government employees, having no corporations to be beholden to, can get away with not using anything that a corporation has produced. Or can they?

So how do you fight a fire without corporate influence. The fire is only two blocks away from the firehouse, so response time should be quite quick. However...... no corporate products can be utilized.

No alarms can be sounded at the firehouse because the alarms were made by a corporation, the electricity provided by another corporation, and the phone call wouldn't get through due to the telecommunications being a corporate entity.
You cannot use the fire truck, it was made by a corporation, and the fuel used to move the fire truck, another corporation.
The road, which may have been constructed by government union labor, was made with corporate concrete extracted from corporate gravel pits, utilizing corporate-made heavy equipment.
But the fire is only two block away, no need for the roads or alarms, we can see and smell the smoke, we can run to the location. BUT.......
Although there is plenty of city water available, the fire hydrants are made by a corporation, so they are off limits. The hoses are another corporate product. So how about an old fashioned bucket brigade? Not possible, the buckets were made by a corporation, and don't even begin to think you could use your helmets, boots, or any other protective gear, corporate products also.
So how then do you fight a fire without corporate influence, the only weapon you have left.......
you piss on it.

Try doing any government job without the corporations. Before you hate on anything and everything corporate, remember the corporations are what is keeping this country running, they sell their products to everyone so we can all do our jobs. And as a bonus they hire us to do the jobs that pay for the products we need to buy from them. So how is taking more from the evil corporations going to benefit the working families? Maybe the liberals need to answer some tough questions before they begin screeching for a recall. Which side of the bread is the butter on?

Monday, April 18, 2011

A young patriot, we need more.

The left has no respect for anyone, and they want us to respect them? Not until they are willing to give back what they want to receive. Lets teach them a lesson. They have nothing to add to the argument, all they do is distract and disrupt.

Obama has "something to hide"

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Taxing the rich doesn't work, never has, never will.

Tax cuts vs Tax hikes

On radio today, Glenn addressed several arguments about tax cuts vs tax hikes. He referenced several of the charts below:

Argument: “Can’t we just tax the rich?”

“But, the rich don’t pay their fair share”

Argument: “Is the deficit really that big a deal?”


What is our current US Debt? Click here for the live results

Argument: “What is the alternative plan then?”

Sunday, April 3, 2011

We are in deep doo doo!

By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble



Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management

Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. It's happening right now.*


Thursday, March 31, 2011

Courtroom antics abound!

DKWalser said...(from

@Canuck: There are three legal arguments why what the trial court did in issuing its temporary restraining order (TRO) was "unusual".

First, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that NO state court has the authority to prohibit the publication of a law. The state's petition to appeal the TRO addresses this first argument as follows:

"In Goodland, 243 Wis. at 468, the court cautioned trial courts:

If a court can intervene and prohibit the publication of an act, the court determines what shall be law and not the legislature. If the court does that, it does not in terms legislate but it invades the constitutional power of the legislature to declare what shall become law. This it may not do."

In summary, the 1st argument is that it was unusual for the trial court to issue a TRO for the purpose of determining whether or not the trial court should do that which the state's highest court has already said no trial court can do -- prohibit the publication of an act.

The second argument was addressed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court inState ex rei. La Follette v. Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d 358,
364-68, 338 N.W.2d 684 (1983):

"… [T]he Court declared that courts will not "review legislative conduct to ensure the legislature complied with its own procedural rules or statutes in enacting legislation" and "will not intervene to declare the legislation invalid."" Note: This paragraph, other than this note, is from the DOJ's petition.

In summary, the second argument is similar to the first. The state's highest court has already ruled that a court may not invalidate a law merely because the law was passed in violation of a rule or statute. The alleged violation of the open meetings law CANNOT justify invalidating the law – so, why should the judge issue a TRO to review whether or not to invalidate the law because of the alleged violation of the open meetings law?

The third argument is that the court has no authority, based on an alleged open meetings law violation, to order the Secretary of State to do anything. The open meetings law does NOT apply to the Secretary of State. Even if it did, the Secretary of State did not attend the meeting that was held (allegedly) in violation of the open meetings law. So, how can the Secretary of State be a defendant in the suit brought by the county DA?

The Secretary of State, acting in his official capacity, benefits from sovereign immunity and courts have no authority over the Secretary of State for an alleged violation of a law unless that immunity has been affirmatively waived by the state. (Some laws specifically allow suits to be brought against state officials. That's the exception, not the rule.) The open meetings law does not waive the Secretary of State's sovereign immunity. The law provides for remedies that may be taken against members of a legislative body that violate the law, but it does not grant the courts ANY authority over an administrative (as opposed to legislative or judicial) official or agency.

In summary, since the court had no personal jurisdiction over the Secretary of State, it strikes some as unusual for the court to presume to issue a TRO covering the Secretary of State.

Anne speaking here. The judge has no jurisdiction, she cannot enjoin the Secretary of State from performing his administrative duties in any way, but to issue a temporary restraining order was overstepping her authority and overreaching. I think the reason that the reason Fitzgerald is not calling for a new vote is because the rule of law needs to be reestablished here in WI. With the liberal judges making unreasonable demands and ruling outside of their jurisdiction, the GOP is hoping the Supreme Court of WI will rule in their favor and reprimand the liberal judges, to they do not attempt this again. It is not an easy job reestablishing the "rule of law" because the liberals have derailed it for their own purposes for a very long time. But without a "rule of law" in this land that applies across the board, there is no "rule of law" period. The Democrats do not get to pick and choose the laws they will demand others abide by while they get to break any rule they please. It will be a long fight.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

A letter to Kathleen Sebelius

Dear Ms Sebelius,

Perhaps you missed the point of my e-mail. I think the Department of Health and Human Services is an unnecessary expenditure, and needs to be dismantled in its entirety. Starting with the whole idea that a central government can handle a healthcare system for an entire nation. This same type of service has been tried and has failed in numerous countries around the globe. England and Canada being only two countries that are now looking into privatizing their healthcare systems. Why are we not learning from them, why do we continue to implement a similar system to what has been tried and proved to be an unmitigated disaster? I do not want to be a party of any type to such a horrible idea. And as such I do not need to be reminded of what the department is doing to curtail my liberties, by adding a level of bureaucracy to all levels of a private conversation between my doctor and myself.

A thoughtful argument against nationalized healthcare


1. It is Unconstitutional (ILLEGAL) and Anti-constitutional (ANTI-AMERICAN)

A. Article 6 of the United States Constitution states that all of the members of BOTH houses of Congress “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. A PRINCIPLED member of Congress would feel duty bound to vote against any proposed legislation that violated that sacred oath or affirmation. Three Clauses in the Constitution are IMPROPERLY cited by proponents of the Nationalization of Health Care as granting the Congress the right to Nationalize Health Care.

1. The “General Welfare Clause” - This clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”
This clause is NOT a grant of Power to Congress. It is a LIMIT to a power given to Congress: It LIMITS the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect Taxes.

2. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause " gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.” Like the General Welfare Clause, this clause was not a stand alone grant of power to Congress. Rather it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make other grants of authority in Article 1 effectual. So the Necessary and Proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance. One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution.

3. “The Commerce Clause” " gives Congress the power to “ regulate commerce…among the states.” It was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries on the way to
market. To Create and Engage in Commerce (National Health Insurance) is NOT the same thing as regulating commerce.

B. It is Anti-Constitutional. Obamacare’s passage would guarantee the eventual destruction of all important Guarantees of individual Liberty and Limited Government made by the Constitution.

2. It is IMMORAL for one group of citizens to abolish the rights and liberties of fellow Human Beings who have violated no law.
3. It is an act of THEFT from our Children of the labor they will be performing for their families and their country. It is the selling of our children into partial slavery. It insures that each child born in America will have an enormous debt to pay for substandard services they did not request.
4. It STEALS our children’s precious freedom to make basic decisions about the well- being of their bodies and minds and gives these stolen powers to government bureaucrats. It promotes the creation of more bureaucrats.
5. It ASSIGNS to the State the power of life and death over citizens who have committed no crime.
6. It is DESTRUCTIVE to the basic work of the Health Care Professional whose sole ethical responsibility must be to the Patient, a principle encapsulated in the Hippocratic Oath.
7. It DESTROYS incentive for independent and corporate scientific investigation into Human health and disease.
8. It proposes Government SEIZURE of the property of health care professionals.
9. The process of its coming to a vote is CONTEMPTUOUS of US Citizens and their elected representatives.
10. Proponents make outrageous statements about cutting the cost of Government “health care” by eliminating “fraud, waste, and abuse.” They claim to be able to do this so massively and so easily that their program will cost essentially NOTHING. This contrasts with figures prepared by economists projecting a cost of $1-2 Trillion Dollars. When Medicaid was first proposed its increasing annual cost to the Taxpayers was estimated to be 1/9 of the actual eventual annual cost.
11. Proponents deny the existence of Death Panels in their plans. Health costs cannot possibly be contained other than through rationing and rationing means allowing bureaucrats to place differing values on different people’s lives according to age, overall health, etc. These decisions will result in the earlier deaths of some people than would otherwise have occurred. If this cannot be called a Death Panel then what could be?
12. Proponents are attempting to collectivize Doctors. In 1930’s in Russia Stalin essentially declared that the Soviet agriculture system was ‘broken’ and therefore had to be placed under central government control. A famine with 10 million Russian deaths ensued. Proponents are attempting to declare government OWNERSHIP of Doctors including to authority to CONTROL them in every possible way.
13. Despite proposing to OWN Doctors as Government SLAVES proponents emphasize that Doctors could STILL BE SUED for unlimited damages.
14. The architect of Obamacare is Ezekiel Emanuel, a so called Bioethicist who believes that the Hippocratic Oath is the CAUSE of America's "broken" Health Care System! He recommends that physicians renounce the oath in favor of a commitment to "Society."
15. Nowhere in the Constitution is it suggested that Government is allowed to order its Citizens to purchase something.
16. Congressional Proponents want nothing to do with government healthcare for themselves and their families yet they want it to be forced on Americans who they know do not want it."
Texas MD

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Climategate Uncovered

Okay, so we have the data in actual form that shows the truth and the fraud. How can anyone see this and still believe in global warming? This is fraud of the worst kind, it was meant to take billions of dollars from people and siphon it off to a small elite group. These "scientists" need to be prosecuted and put away for a very long time and this whole global warming fraud needs to be shown the light of day. If you still have the gonads to push the agenda after this, you should be ridiculed in the worst possible fashion.
All the legislation used to control the population in the name of saving the planet needs to be repealed and the appropriations need to be returned to those from whom it was stolen. Anyone, you know who you are Algore, who prospered from this fraud, need to have their credibility questioned and never be allowed to influence anyone else in the future. As far as I am concerned, all of the hollywood crowd who crowed the loudest needs to be ashamed of themselves, and give back what they made off of this. Too bad there aren't any laws against stupidity, like there are against fraud.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Walker v. Unions: the truth told

Wisconsin Interest
Volume 20, No. 1
March, 2011

By now, the political lore is familiar: A major political party, cast aside by Wisconsin voters due to a lengthy recession, comes roaring back, winning a number of major state offices.

The 43-year-old new governor, carrying out a mandate he believes the voters have granted him, boldly begins restructuring the state’s tax system. His reform package contains a major change in the way state and local governments bargain with their employees, leading to charges that the governor is paying back his campaign contributors.

Only the year wasn’t 2011 — it was 1959, and Gov. Gaylord Nelson had just resurrected the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Certain of his path, Nelson embarked on an ambitious agenda that included introduction of a withholding tax, which brought hundreds of protesters to the Capitol. Nelson also signed the nation’s first public-sector collective bargaining law — the same law that 52 years later Gov. Scott Walker targeted for fundamental revision.

Two different governors, two different parties, and two different positions.

Ironically, their assertive gubernatorial actions may produce the same disruptive outcome. By empowering the unions, Nelson’s legislation led to public-sector strikes and work stoppages. By disempowering the unions, Walker’s actions might lead to public-sector strikes and work stoppages.

In Walker’s case, union members reluctantly agreed to his pension and health-care demands, but have fought desperately to preserve their leverage in negotiating contracts. That raises the basic question of the Madison showdown: Why is Scott Walker so afraid of collective bargaining?

The answer can be found in the rise of the state’s teachers unions.

After the 1959 Municipal Employees Relations law passed, the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association became, in 1964, the state’s first certified teachers’ bargaining agent. Slowly, more teacher groups across the state began to organize in their districts. And in 1969, Ashwaubenon teachers became the first Wisconsin educators to hit the bricks and strike, as 83 teachers walked out for four days.

Part and parcel with these developments, a venerable professional group founded in 1853, the Wisconsin Education Association, transformed itself into a tough-talking trade union in 1972 called the Wisconsin Education Association Council, with the authority to bargain on behalf of teachers all over the state.

WEAC began collecting funds from its members ($3 apiece) to spend on supporting political candidates. According to the union, 88% of its endorsed candidates won in the 1974 elections. The union had arrived on center stage as a major player in Wisconsin politics.

Unionized teachers routinely flexed their muscle. Between 1969 and 1974, there were 50 teacher strikes in Wisconsin, despite a state law declaring public employee strikes illegal.Because there were no penalties outlined in the law, WEAC’s leadership frequently convinced its members to walk out anyway.

A turning point came in March 1974, when a bitter teachers’ strike in the small town of Hortonville prompted a resolute school board to fire and replace 88 striking teachers. All hell broke loose.

The strike, one of the longest in the history of American education, garnered national media attention and was litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices affirmed the school board’s right to fire the strikers.

Asked later if it was wise for WEAC to pick a fight in conservative Outagamie County, its former executive director Morris Andrews said: “I would have chosen a better place.”

Determined to use the Hortonville defeat as a rallying cry for solidarity, Andrews began pushing for a stronger, more galvanized teachers union. Under his leadership, WEAC hired collective-bargaining and arbitration experts and implemented “pattern bargaining” strategies. The idea was to extract as much salary and benefit increases as possible from teacher-sympathetic school boards, then use that data to pressure more stubborn boards to cough up better pay and benefits.

Notably, WEAC’s post-Hortonville muscle led to passage of a 1977 mediation-arbitration law that guarantees settlement of deadlocked collective-bargaining disputes.

The new law essentially ended public employee strikes. According to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, the state has had 111 municipal employee strikes since 1970; 90% took place prior to the 1977 med-arb law. Since 1982, there has only been one strike, in 1997 by Madison Metropolitan School District teachers.
The end of strikes, however, didn’t mean teachers were any less aggressive in negotiating. Aided by the new law, teachers redoubled their efforts to improve compensation. And they succeeded, judging by the costs of total pay and benefit packages.

For instance, statewide average teacher salaries increased 6% per year in the 16 years before the Hortonville strike. In the 16 years after the strike, the increase is pegged at 7% annually. Not a big difference, for sure.

But salaries are only a part of the picture. Consider that in the 16 years prior to Hortonville, average state per-pupil spending increased 6.7% per year. Post-strike, it jumped to 9.6% per year in the 16 years following the Hortonville clash.

Through collective bargaining, WEAC obtained concessions from management that appeared to have little fiscal effect, but in the long run greatly benefited its members.

It was in the early 1970s, for example, that local government employees across the state started to see taxpayers picking up the full cost of pension benefits — the very practice Gov. Walker fought against in his budget-repair bill.

In the ’70s, union leaders were figuring out the value of benefits; many of labor’s decision-makers were older and needed health and pension benefits more than the rank and file. They recognized that benefits were often not taxed, meaning that teachers usually got more bang from a buck in benefits than from a buck in pay.

Other provisions benefiting unions followed. In 1973, Wisconsin enacted the “Educational Standards Bill,” establishing that all teachers must be certified by the state Department of Public Instruction, that every school district must provide kindergarten, special education, guidance counselors, and other measures.

Also in 1973, Milwaukee teachers negotiated a benefit that paid their health care premiums when they retired — in 2016, this benefit will be worth $4.9 billion, or more than four times the size of the Milwaukee district’s current budget.

Teachers represented by WEAC often demanded that their health premiums be provided by WEA Trust — their own health insurer — at a cost often greater than insurance on the private market. (Started in 1970, WEA Trust is now the fifth-largest health insurer in Wisconsin.)

In none of these cases of advancing teachers and their union were the long-term fiscal costs known. While Capitol protesters in February offered to give up some short-term financial considerations, it is this slow, steady, tectonic shift towards enriching and empowering public employees that Walker sought to decisively reverse.

Bottom line: Even in giving up ground on a few major points, the negotiating tide on work rules and other matters still favors government labor.

Today, K-12 education funding dwarfs the next-highest state spending program by a measure of 4-to-1. In 2011, Wisconsin spent $5.3 billion on public school aids, compared to $1.3 billion on Medical Assistance.

Give WEAC credit for having the most aggressive and most sophisticated bargainers. Give it credit for executing a long-term strategy to enrich its members. But the union has been so successful for so long that it has sown the seeds for a humbling comeuppance.

It was this seemingly inexorable march toward higher spending that Walker is trying to halt by disassembling an overly powerful and deeply entrenched union machine.
Upon taking office in 1959, Gov. Nelson called on politicians to “think and act anew.” And that’s exactly what Gov. Walker is doing.

Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.