Morning Joe 2/21/2011 -- the centrist game

Morning Joe this morning spent most of the show discussing the Wisconsin situation and taking both sides several times -- it was like a ping pong match going back and forth from Gov Walker's position to the union's position, with the union position winning in the end. This is the trick of centrism. Centrism isn't a position -- it's a political tactic, and until that's understood, the false impression that centrism is intelligent and nuanced will prevail. When watching Morning Joe, which is influenced by Joe Scarborough's lead, you have to look for the side that's fed the most to determine their stance on any givern issue. Joe S. will quickly defend his style by stating that he's interviewing his guests and trying to bring out all sides of a current issue, yet he and Mika and Mike Barnicle and other regulars, while sometimes disagreeing, usually come out on the left side of most political issues -- when I say "left" I mean the current modern liberal position that the role of government should be gradually expanded when necessary to help guide society to fairness and justice and to guide the economy to "fair" progress, that government regulation and oversight is vital to social justice, whatever that means to different individuals. It sounds good until you consider what government actually does and what results from government's involvement, then it's inexplicable, and one wonders why they don't promote innovative private sector solutions to social and economic problems. 

The conclusion this morning was that the unions have made good moves in Wisconsin by agreeing to contributions to pensions and healthcare, and that the Republicans are now over-reaching and trying to break the union. This would be described as a centrist position because it recognizes the need to deal with budget issues, but it respects the right of unions to negotiate for their interests. This is what passes for nuance and thoughtfulness in the phony centrist game. They came to this conclusion after a discussion which acknowledged how the current public union system has "negotiated" such sweet heart deals at municipal and state levels that they can't be paid for. It's the system of public workers being forced into unions, forced to pay dues and then building a voting bloc which elects government officials beholden to the unions who then agree to sweet-heart benefit deals, all at the tax-payer expense, that's the fundamental problem. However, this nuance was ignored in the final conclusion, which basically says it's okay now for the unions to give back some of the money they've squeezed from tax-payers but leave the sytem untouched. If the system is left untouched, then as soon as the union can squeeze again, they will -- so the fundamental problem isn't solved, and as soon as the bandaid comes off, it's back to raiding the State treasury. The Wisconsin voters got tired of the squeeze and they elected Walker to solve fundmental problems, not cow-tow to unions with bandaid solutions.

Centrists always lean toward modern liberalism, and they always wind up supporting, for the most part, incremental moves that increase the power of the State at the expense of the private sector. Where are the centrists who support a limited government and a free market?

Joe S. deserves credit for bringing up the signs used by the unions depicting Gov Walker as Hitler and Mubarak and also using an image of Walker in crosshairs. If this was the Tea Party, these signs would be running non-stop on the major news outlets with every pundit in DC warning of violent rhetoric and referring back to Gabby Giffords. But centrist can't leave it at that -- right after Joe's mini-rant about the signs, they played a clip of Rick Santelli on Meet the Press saying that the country should come together over budget issues which are threatening the nation's financial stability like they came together after 9/11 -- Joe S. then made the ridiculous statement that Santelli was comparing 9/11 to what's going in Wisconsin. This is balance, see? Joe S. is saying that the Republicans are just as bad -- however, I watched Meet the Press, and Santelli was not comparing 9/11 to Wisconsin, he was saying the nation should come together on one threat to national security like they did another threat -- he had no intention of comparing non-violent protests to thousands of deaths. Joe S. was out of line with this, but it's what centrists do to give the impression of balance.

Carl Bernstein was on, and if there is a better example of Democrat partisanship which butchers reality, I don't know of it. Bernstein grudgingly admiited that the signs held by protesters in Wisconsin were inappropriate, but then made a statement that no one followed up on -- he said he thinks Ron Paul started the Mubarak comparison. WTF? My God, why is this man still in front of a camera? 

Coercion is the difference

Any legislation which gives an advantage to unions by coercing employers to act against their own interests has lost the moral high-ground in my opinion. I will support unions as long as any negotiations are voluntary, and any pressure a union can apply within rational laws which protect against coercion is fine by me, as long as owners of business or those given authority can fire people at will. I think that labor fighting for its own interests is part of a free society -- but coercion isn't. It might sound cruel in today's world to say that employers should have a right to fire anyone they wish to fire, but there are other more effective ways for unions to make their case and protect their interests than lobbying government to force employers to act against their, the employers', own interests. It wouldn't be moral to force unions to not strike, and it's not moral to force employers to negotiate, and to prevent employers from firing those they wish to fire.

Employers wouldn't fire willy nilly if they have the right -- they would sit down with honest brokers if it's in their interests, and unions would have to show where both sides benefit -- otherwise, it's simply a system of unions bullying employers to get what they want regardless of what is good for the employer. Without the ability to refuse to negotiate or to fire those who appear to the employer dangerous to the employers' going concerns, it's a one-sided route to labor benefitting at the expense of employers, and this leads to bad financial situations as we've witnessed.

Emotionalism does not solve the problem

Many on the Left are stoking emotions regarding unions, teachers, firemen, social workers, police officers and all other public employees now in the underdog position fighting the greedy, heartless Right. The public service union members say they are willing to sacrifice to help with deficits, but like most statist-leaning citizens and government officials they are unwilling to change the system that got us where we're at. If the system, like collective bargaining, allows public employees to pressure for benefits which can't be paid out, we continuously go further into the hole until people are laid off. If we apply symptomatic solutions to symptomatic problems, the fundamental problem will return over and over, each time getting worse.

We need to reduce the size and power of government and allow the private sector to offer equal opportunity to everyone where no one group is favored over others at the expense of others. I realize it's an emotional rush to protest and conflate entitlements with democracy and individual rights, but emotionalism doesn't solve the problem -- it only makes the problems more intractable.

It's a matter of economics and math, not emotional exuberance. All the emotional exuberance in the world will not change the reality of states going broke. Raising taxes at this point will only feed the beast.

Morning Joe 2/18/2011 -- Unions, debt and reality

There was a good conversation this morning on Morning Joe, and to Joe Scarborough's credit he opposed the Wisconsin protesterss who have become so ridiculous, it's entering the realm of surreal. Teachers are not going to work, and they are encouraging impressionable students to protest spending cuts which have to happen if the state wants to avoid bankruptcy. Mika defended the teachers and public union employees because they'll have to pay into their pensions and healthcare, just like the private sector has to do. What they didn't mention is how the protesters are going about their protests, comparing the Wisconsin government to Hitler and then pretending to be Egyptians fighting for democracy -- this is just silly, and it speaks to the superficial mindset of government dependents who feel entitled.

Mike Barnicle and John Meacham agreed that reality has set in and state spending has to be cut. Ezra Klein was on as the converstaion had turned to the media's persistent questioning of Republicans over Obama's birth certificate and religion. Klein, a partisan hack, and the rest, eventually framed the Republicans as the ones keeping this issue going, although all Republican leaders have said they accept Obama's word. What else can they say -- does the liberal media want Republicans to swear to God, cross their hearts with a double pinkie promise? The media keeps this "controversy" going to frame Republicans as extreme. It's no longer newsworthy, but it's of political use and that's good enough for jounalists and reporters nowadays. Anyone who seriously uses this birth and religion as a strategy against Obama is an idiot. If some people still have doubts, then so what? Many on the Left maintained doubts about Bush's involvement in 9/11 -- it's fringe car-wreck stuff.

Terry Holt, a Republican strategist, was on and mentioned the system in government which allows spending problems to get out of control, and then the gang mentioned the "system' several times, but not by name. The system is statism. They are getting closer to reality.

Workers vs Capitalists

Despite the many changes in the workplace, in industry, in management practices, in technology and in capitalism itself, many people in the US and around the world, especially on the Left, still view Workers in a battle against Capitalist Overlords. Private sector unions and oldstyle industries are becoming dinosaurs in the US as hi-tech and service industry increase in importance. Unions are practically irrelevant in the private sector, and in this recession more and more companies are hiring temps. Even when the economy fires up again, the growth will be in small companies which aren't amenable to unions. The worker of the future will likely be his/her own boss as a contract worker, with benefits basically a thing of the past as individuals purchase private comprehensive insurance plans which aren't dependent on where they work.

There will still be manufacturing jobs, but they'll require more highly-skilled workers who won't fall into the union-type worker who at one time spent a work-life with one company protected by the union. The old idea of Workers fighting against the Man is an idea that has lasted beyond its usefulness. Unions will eventually price themselves out of the global market, and trying to hold on to this old idea will only delay the transition and drag down the American economy if the government tries to subsidize the old arrangement.

How will workers fare? Just fine if they gain the necessary knowledge and skills to become valuable. The responsibility to become a vital part of industry is being pushed on individuals. Government can't afford to create work, and companies can't compete without good workers who have the requisite skills and knowledge -- we'll transition by necessity from collective bargaining and union protection to individual merit and performance -- we'll have to.