Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Public unions force taxpayers to fund Democrats
The Washington Examiner ^ | February 22, 2011 | Michael Barone

Posted on 02/23/2011 8:15:00 AM PST by opentalk

Everyone has priorities. During the past week Barack Obama has found no time to condemn the attacks that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has launched on the Libyan people. But he did find time to be interviewed by a Wisconsin television station and weigh in on the dispute between Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the state's public employee unions. Walker was staging "an assault on unions," he said, and added that "public employee unions make enormous contributions to our states and our citizens."

Enormous contributions, yes -- to the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012election; aboveandbelow; articleivsection4; bhofascism; corruption; democrats; dnc; dncscam; elections; fleebaggerparty; fleebaggers; fraud; fundedbysoros; liberalfascism; liberalism; liberals; obama; obama2012; obamasminions; ofa; progressives; seiu; soros; stern; trumpka; unioncorruption; unions; walker; wisconsin; wisconsinshowdown

1 posted on 02/23/2011 8:15:03 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Unions are a legal “privileged class” to Democrats (our founders envisioned NO royalty of any kind!). Public employee unions were invented by Democrat “progressives”... as a permanent public money cash cow! We ordinary folks are told we must sacrifice, tighten our belts and pay higher taxes because the morbidly obese “1,000lb man” (public sector) can NEVER be asked to go on a diet! They are the WORST kind of greedy, they want MORE, MORE, MORE and want you to have LESS, LESS, LESS! Methinks now their cover be blown?


2 posted on 02/23/2011 8:22:11 AM PST by FiddlePig (truth is hard... lies are easy - http://redneckoblogger.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Explaining why Richard Trumpka goes to the White House weekly, while a half dozen administration cabinet members have never met Obama.

Anyone who supports this administration is an enemy of the state, IMO.

3 posted on 02/23/2011 8:22:21 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

But at least campaign funds originating from private sector unions come from products willingly purchased, not forced on the consumer at gunpoint.


4 posted on 02/23/2011 8:25:10 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

it pisses me off the gop in ALL states don’t go after public unions more. They’re using tax dollars to fund your opposition


5 posted on 02/23/2011 8:27:07 AM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

We need to send this story to all our state lawmakers and demand that these unions be legislated out of existence.


6 posted on 02/23/2011 8:34:19 AM PST by thethirddegree (Islam is a vile, barbaric, perverted, depraved,seditious cult invented by a murdering pedophile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
"It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, "Action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.""

This should become a MAJOR talking point for ANY Republican who is interviewed about this issue!

7 posted on 02/23/2011 8:44:23 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

“They’re using tax dollars to fund your opposition”

That’s the main reason I won’t join the union (Federal worker in the FAA and I’m NOT a leach, dmv) because half the monthly dues go the AFL-CIO and they spend 95% on demorat candidates.

So why would I want to pay into something that is trying to defeat a conservative candidate.


8 posted on 02/23/2011 9:56:15 AM PST by Caribou ( www.ktok.com Red State Radio free streaming. RIP Mark Shannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

...”Anyone who supports this administration is an enemy of the state, IMO.”....

I agree...


9 posted on 02/23/2011 10:30:13 AM PST by astounded (Barack Obama is still a clear and present danger to the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
But at least campaign funds originating from private sector unions come from products willingly purchased, not forced on the consumer at gunpoint.

Private sector unions are legitimate unless they get Gov't bailouts like at GM and Chrysler. They push it too far and they lose their jobs because their employer moves or goes out of business

10 posted on 02/23/2011 10:34:52 AM PST by dennisw ( The early bird catches the worm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

In WI, here is one example of union waste of 1/2 billion taxpayer dollars. How much went to the DP?

Here is a report from 2000 that shows the waste of WEAC of at least $ 50 million a year times 10+ years === 1/2 billion dollars.
This problem has been documented and known for a long time and the union refused to do anything..

There is a need to summarize the significant past problems in dealing with WEAC (teachers union). Everyone knows that the DP supports wholeheartly the teachers union and gives away taxpayer money to them. The union has an unfair power/leverage that increases taxpayer costs. Another issue is the unfair process of mediation/arbitration.

Here is a report from 2000 stating that WEAC controls 85% of the teacher’s health insurance without competition.

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume13/Vol13no8.pdf page 20

The market for teachers’health insurance in Wisconsin is characterized by several traits. The health insurance is
determined through the collective bargaining process. The health insurance plans provided by the districts are rarely
put out to bid.37 The WEAInsurance Corporation, an entity affiliated with the state’s largest teachers union, provides
insurance coverage to roughly 85% of the districts. The peculiarities of this market suggest that competition between
insurers to write health insurance coverage is severely limited in most districts.
The current study reports the results of a statistical analysis that tested whether the WEAInsurance Corporation
charges more for health insurance coverage than other insurers. The analysis controlled for various factors believed
to be associated with the price of insurance coverage. The results suggest that the WEA Insurance Corporation does
charge more for its insurance product than other insurers. Possible explanations for this finding are that the WEA
Insurance Corporation provides more extensive insurance protection to those it insures, that it provides a higher level
of service to its customers, and that it derives market power from its affiliation with the WEA.
Reform that would foster competition in the market for teachers’ health insurance would serve the interests of
Wisconsin’s taxpayers and teachers. A model for reform is the health insurance pool for state employees. This is
administered by the Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF), as is a similar pool available to Wisconsin public
employers. On a statewide basis, savings that could accrue to school districts through participation in the state
employee health insurance pool are estimated to be approximately $50,000,000 per year. If the savings were passed
to Wisconsin’s teachers, the average teacher in the state would receive a pay increase of $875.


11 posted on 02/23/2011 11:28:55 AM PST by ADSUM (Democracy works when citizens get involved and keep government honest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Unions consistently commit treason on the level of releasing the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, and Saddam Hussein. Why are union members treated by so many conservatives as respectable people we can disagree with? Why are we not treating them as the enemies of the state that they are, and sponsoring leaders who will permanently shut down the unions by any means necessary?


12 posted on 02/23/2011 11:32:08 AM PST by Objective Scrutator (Liberals will kill your family if they are keeping a Democrat from a Congressional seat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Link to “Like” Scott Walker on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/governorscottwalker


13 posted on 02/23/2011 11:37:08 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

look at #3 for “heavy hitters”

AFSCME $43,337,561

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php


14 posted on 02/23/2011 12:30:55 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

marker


15 posted on 02/23/2011 6:55:27 PM PST by prairiebreeze (Egyptian Foreign Minister to Barack Obama: "Boy, go play somewhere else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

This can be fixed in any state by passing Paycheck Protection - requiring unions to get explicit permission annually from members to use union dues for politics.

Arnold tried to get this done his 1st year in California with the special election proposition. It was crushed by the Nurses Union and Teachers Union drumming up opposition by the voters. What a shame. California would already have Paycheck Protection if this had passed, and the Democratic Party stranglehold would be severely weakened in California.

This needs to be raised again and PASSED.


16 posted on 02/23/2011 9:21:37 PM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (We be Fooked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

No public employee unions, no Democratic party, quoting
JB Williams’ recent article at News With Views.


17 posted on 02/24/2011 6:32:27 AM PST by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

Just how did they drum up opposition? Did people still
have so much regard for teachers? For the nurses’ union,
see the Diastat video (Radley Balko’s IIRC)


18 posted on 02/24/2011 6:38:35 AM PST by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

I’m ashamed I didn’t quite realize the full implications
of 1. public employee unions 2. paycheck deduction and
3. sustaining the Democrats until recently.


19 posted on 02/24/2011 6:40:28 AM PST by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cycjec
It really is a racket. They are busing in mobs because of the power structure at stake.

It helps explain why Obama is pushing for TSA to be unionized. The system is getting rigged against the average citizen to fund their agenda (IMO). It is also disturbing that union leaders were involved with Egypt in the recent revolt.

20 posted on 02/24/2011 6:58:28 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
From 2009, and this link should be shared....

Another thug union puts self-preservation over children

21 posted on 02/24/2011 7:01:32 AM PST by mewzilla (Hey, Schumer, your Lockerbie report left quite a bit out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
From your link:

This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do.

But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.

sums it up MONEY

22 posted on 02/24/2011 7:12:15 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
FDR said it this way...

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Not that I agree with a lot that FDR did...but he had this right.

23 posted on 02/24/2011 7:13:36 AM PST by ThomasMore (Islam is the Whore of Babylon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
BLAME John F Kennedy...

"In 1962, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.

This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers' National Education Association. "

This has led to an endless supply of money...Federal Tax Dollars...to enter into the campaign funds of the Democratic Party as well...against the will of many tax payers. IMO, this is unconstitutional. One can make a case that it is taxation without representation.

24 posted on 02/24/2011 7:21:05 AM PST by ThomasMore (Islam is the Whore of Babylon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore

Great point. Rush has called the process money laundering.


25 posted on 02/24/2011 7:28:06 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson