Walker, Unions, and Outside Money

Posted by Troy on 6th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

Governor Scott Walker survived the recall election.  This basically means that the Unions and Wisconsin Democrats wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and everybody’s time and the money that both parties spent on campaigning.  Good going, guys.

This recall election should have never had happened.  He was recalled merely because the Left did not like the laws that he passed.  This is an inappropriate reason to have a recall.  A recall should be for cause, a moral or ethical flaw comes to light such as learning a politician had raped someone when he was younger.  The only other reason a recall should be issued is if they actively go against their campaign promise.  Scott Walker ran on stopping Obamacare.  If he had gone up there and voted in favor for it on the first day, then yes, he should be recalled.  However, Scott Walker did exactly what he said he was going to do.  As such, there was no reason for him to be recalled.  I think that the Wisconsonites understood that, and that is part of the reason why he won by nine percentage points.

Unions are a dinosaur that have outlived their usefulness.  If they were still useful, they wouldn’t have to pass card check and make belonging to a union mandatory.  If you’re worthwhile, you don’t have to force people to join.  When they started out, unions gave workers power.  Over time, they made a lot of improvements.  As working conditions improved to the point where workers were satisfied, workers stopped forming and joining unions.  Of course, unions leaned on the Democrats and passed laws to ensure that their future was secure.  In the real world, what should have happened is that the union would have been dissolved after the workers were satisfied with their working conditions.  If conditions fell again, the workers would unionize again, and the cycle would start over.  However, this did not happen, and unions were able to secure deals that have bankrupted company after company and is on the verge of bankrupting state after state.

Unable to deal with laws being passed that they didn’t approve of, the Left recalled the Governor.  Unable to deal with the fact that they lost and lost badly, they blame the influx of outside money and the fact that Scott Walker outspent Barrett.  There is nothing wrong with someone making a contribution to someone.  It is only a problem if there is an ethical violation tied to the contribution such as buying someone’s vote.  I don’t remember anyone on the Left whining about Obama outspending McCain 3 to 1 in the 2008 election, and that was after Obama said that he would only use public financing.  Of course, that promise (like any others he makes) is only good until it is in his benefit to go back on it.  It is incumbent upon a candidate to acquire campaign funds.  Imagine a case where a local election is taking place in a poor county.  The richest man in the county is running and controls a lot of the media outlets.  You mean to tell me you would be against the opponent seeking campaign help from outside the county?  As long as the advertisements that the outside parties paid for are true, there can be no problem.  The only goal of advertisements is to educate the public and present them with information.  Only the people can make a decision.  Only the people can vote.  I for one believe that people are smart enough to tell when they are being lied to.  I believe they can evaluate information and make rational decisions.  Basically, if you are against Citizens United and outside financing and other matters of the sort, what this really means is that you do not believe that people are qualified, on the whole, to make these judgement calls.  If this is the case, why bother having elections?  What should you have us do?  Shall we collect all the funds and then split it evenly?  That’s not fair, is it?  If a politician draws more donations because of his policies, shouldn’t he have the benefit of having such appeal?  If you believe that money is the only thing that matters, let’s do away with elections.  We’ll just have a fund raiser.  The candidate that raises the most money wins, and the amount raised will go to their favorite charity.

Long Live the Constitution!

One Response to “Walker, Unions, and Outside Money”

  1. Betania Says:

    There are two very good arguments for elainimting ALL public sector unions:► Unions & Democrat Party Ponzi Scheme The unions, and ESPECIALLY public sector unions, have morphed into nothing more than the money laundering arm of the Democrat Party. Do the public sector unions negotiate their contracts with YOU, the taxpayer? No they do NOT The public sector unions negotiate their contracts with the local liberal Democrat politicians (wink, wink), and then LO AND BEHOLD !! at election time, those same unions who just got big fat raises and cushy retirement packages from the liberal Democrats (at YOUR expense), turn around and donate all of their union dues to the liberal Democrat politicians who gave them the raises.This is a CLEAR conflict of interest !!!► Sustainability You can NOT have public sector unions with employment packages (income + benefits + retirement) making 2x what the local citizens, who pay for the public sector unions, are making.You cannot have public sector unions with employment packages worth $100,000/year when the average employment packages of the local citizens is $45,000/year.That is NOT sustainable! Or, put another way, Socialism works fine until the money runs out.

Leave a Reply