Twinsburg Area Republican Club
 Supporting Conservative Values
HomeAbout UsPresidential Candidates 2012Contact Your PoliticiansAssorted Items

Welcome to Twinsburg Republican Club
The Twinsburg Area Republican Club was founded in March of 2009, and was the idea of Bill Snow who served as its President for two years. We thank Bill for his commitment to conservative values and the residents of Twinsburg and the surrounding communities.
Contact Us
NEXT MEETING

 The June meeting will be held on a week night at the Twinsburg Public Library.

Check back for the date and time.
CLUB OFFICERS AS OF MARCH 2012

President: Matt Cellura
Vice President: Chris Farley
Treasurer: Mary Gemlich
Corresponding Secretary: Regina Wolf
Secretary: Steve Murphy
​Sargent at Arms: Bill Furey
ELECTION YEAR 2012
It's HERE!

We are planning in advance our monthly subjects.
  •   HOW TO DEFEAT OBAMA! 
  •    WHY WE MUST DEFEAT OBAMA!

Keep September 13th open. Meet the candidates at the library.

Keep checking this site for 2012 details.

GET INVOLVED!
Sign InView Entries
Is this the HOPE & CHANGE you voted for?
Time to do it right.
Obama’s failed promises: Iowa edition

Posted by Dan Spencer (Diary) 
Tuesday, January 3rd at 3:15PM EST 

The good folks at the RNC took a look at what Obama promised in Iowa four years ago …. and the record of failure that followed. The result is the following video, “Failed Promises: Iowa Edition” along with a little research to demonstrate Obama’s failure:
In Des Moines, Iowa, four years ago Obama promised that when “We’ve made the changes we believe in,” we’d be “Able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.”
“[Y]ears from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in, when more families can afford to see a doctor, when our children — when Malia and Sasha and your children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer, when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united, you’ll be able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)
Four years later, a look back at Obama’s record reveals a litany of failure — not only to Iowa, but to the entire country:

FAILED ON JOBS
Since President Obama Took Office The Nation Has Lost 1.9 Million Jobs And The Unemployment Rate Has Increased From 7.8 Percent To 8.6 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, BLS.gov, Accessed 12/7/11)
•The Unemployment Rate Has Remained Above Eight Percent For A Record 34 Straight Months. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, BLS.gov, Accessed 12/7/11)
•There Are Currently 13,303,000 Unemployed Workers. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, BLS.gov, Accessed 12/7/11)
•The Washington Post‘s Fact Checker Said “Obama Is On Track To Have The Worst Jobs Record Of Any President In The Modern Era.” “Unless the economy turns around in the next 18 months, Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. That would be an accurate statement.” (Glenn Kessler, “Rick Perry’s Claim That Obama Has ‘Killed More Jobs’ Than Any Other President,” The Washington Post‘s “The Fact Checker,” 8/22/11)

FAILED ON HOUSING
“This Summer At The White House, Obama Offered A Rare Acknowledgment That His Response To The Housing Crisis Had Fallen Short.” (Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Obama’s Efforts To Aid Homeowners, Boost Housing Market Fall Far Short Of Goals,” The Washington Post, 10/23/11)

FAILED ON SPENDING AND DEFICITS
President Obama Has Racked Up The Three Largest Deficits In U.S. History. “The U.S budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 is $1.299 trillion, the second largest shortfall in history. The nation only ran a larger deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which included the dramatic collapse of financial markets and a huge bailout effort by the government.”(Erik Wasson, “Treasury Announces 2011 Deficit Is Second Highest In History,” The Hill‘s “On The Money,” 10/14/11)
•FY2009: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.413 Trillion, The Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
•FY2011: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.299 Trillion, The Second Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
•FY2010: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.294 Trillion, The Third Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)

FAILED ON DEBT
 – Politifact: “Obama Is The Undisputed Debt King Of The Last Five Presidents.” “So by this measurement — potentially a more important one — Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested.” (“Nancy Pelosi Posts Questionable Chart On Debt Accumulation By Barack Obama, Predecessors,” Politifact, 5/19/11)
Since Obama Took Office, The National Debt Has Increased By Over $4.5 Trillion, An Increase Of Over 42 Percent. (Department Of The Treasury, “Debt To The Penny And Who Holds It,” Treasury Direct, Accessed 12/29/11)
•Obama Is Responsible For “The Most Rapid Increase In The Debt Under Any U.S. President.” “The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.” (Mark Knoller, “National Debt Has Increased $4 Trillion Under Obama,” CBS News, 8/22/11)

FAILED ON TONE
Four Years Ago In Iowa On Caucus Night, Obama Promised That His Presidency Would End Politics Of Divisiveness And Cynicism: 
PROMISE – Obama Promised That His Iowa Victory Would Be The Moment That Ended The Politics “Where We Tear Each Other Down Instead Of Lifting This Country Up.” OBAMA: “This was the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up. This was the moment.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)
Obama’s “Reelection Effort Will Be More Sharply Partisan In Tone Than The Idealistic-Sounding Campaign That Brought Him To Power.” “President Obama’s latest attacks on Republicans are another sign that his reelection effort will be more sharply partisan in tone than the idealistic-sounding campaign that brought him to power.” (Paul West, “Obama Campaign Gears Up To Pull In New Voters,” Los Angeles Times, 9/30/11)
Obama Will “Run A Much More Negative Campaign” To Combat A Jobless Rate That Has Not Allowed For A President’s Reelect “Since The Great Depression.” “The jobless rate will stand at levels that have not led to a president’s re-election since the Great Depression. Largely because of that, Obama will run a much more negative campaign, his aides acknowledge, even if it threatens to demoralize some supporters who were inspired by his 2008 message of hope.” (Charles Babington, “2012 Race Likely To Be Close, Tough, Maybe Brutal,” The Associated Press, 11/5/11)
“Forget Hope And Change,” Obama’s Campaign Is Based On “Fear And Loathing.” “Forget hope and change. President Obama’s reelection campaign is going to be based on fear and loathing: fear of what a Republican takeover would mean, and loathing of whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be. Of course the Obama campaign will attempt to present the affirmative case for his reelection, citing legislative achievements, foreign policy successes and the current flurry of executive actions. But his strategists have clearly concluded that selling the president will not be enough, and the contours of the ugly months ahead are becoming increasingly apparent.” (Ruth Marcus, “Campaign 2012: Welcome To The Slugfest,” The Washington Post, 11/2/11)
•“And As Much As Obama Presented Himself As Above The Regular Partisan Fray During The 2008 Campaign, He Was Not Averse To Taking The Lower Road When It Appeared The Advisable Route.” (Ruth Marcus, “Campaign 2012: Welcome To The Slugfest,” The Washington Post, 11/2/11)
Time’s Mark Halperin: “Barack Obama’s Campaign And Allies Will Run More Negative Ads Against This Republican Nominee In 2012 Than Have Ever Been Run In The History Of The World.” “Look we have a recent example of somebody who talked like this, Barack Obama, he got elected, but he also ran more negative tv ads than anyone has run in the history of the world against john McCain. Barack Obama’s campaign and allies will run more negative ads against this Republican nominee in 2012 than have ever been run in the history of the world.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 6/22/11)

FAILED ON INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS
Four Years Ago In Iowa On Caucus Night, Obama Promised To End The Influence Of Special Interests And Lobbyists: 
Obama Promised To End The Influence Of Lobbyists. OBAMA: “You said the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government – we do. And we are here to take it back.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08) 
Obama’s 2012 Bundler List “Features A Number Of People Involved In The Business Of Influencing Government.” “A list of Obama’s own top fundraisers features a number of people involved in the business of influencing government, including the head of a lobbying and public relations firm, the corporate executive who oversees Comcast’s lobbying efforts and the chairwoman of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s political action committee, among others.” (Michael Scherer, ‘No Registered Lobbyists Among Top Obama Fundraisers, But Influence Seekers Abound,” Time’s “Swampland,” 7/20/11)
Obama Is Ignoring His Pledge To Not Take Money From Lobbyists, Raising Millions From “Prominent Supporters Who Are Active In The Lobbying Industry.” “Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.” (Eric Lichtblau, “Obama Backers Tied To Lobbies Raise Millions,” The New York Times, 10/27/11)
•At Least 15 Of Obama’s Bundlers Are In The Lobbying Industry And Have Raised Over $5 Million For Obama’s Reelection Campaign. “At least 15 of Mr. Obama’s ‘bundlers’ — supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and solicit it from others — are involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies. They have raised more than $5 million so far for the campaign.” (Eric Lichtblau, “Obama Backers Tied To Lobbies Raise Millions,” The New York Times, 10/27/11)
The Obama Administration Meets With Lobbyists At “A Complex Just Off The White House Grounds.” “Caught between their boss’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds – and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.” (Chris Frates, “Lobbyists: W.H. Hides Meetings Off-Site,” Politico, 2/24/11)
These Lobbyists Do Not Make It Into The Visitors Log Which Is Released To The Public. “It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view – and out of Secret Service logs collected on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.” (Chris Frates, “Lobbyists: W.H. Hides Meetings Off-Site,” Politico, 2/24/11)
Attendees Say The Meetings Are Being Kept “Off The Books – So Their Visits Wouldn’t Later Be Made Public.” “The White House scoffs at the notion of an ulterior motive for scheduling meetings in what are, after all, meeting rooms. But at least four lobbyists who’ve been to the conference rooms just off Lafayette Square tell POLITICO they had the distinct impression they were being shunted off to Jackson Place – and off the books – so their visits wouldn’t later be made public.” (Chris Frates, “Lobbyists: W.H. Hides Meetings Off-Site,” Politico, 2/24/11)

FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE
Four Years Ago In Iowa On Caucus Night, Obama Promised To Make Health Care Affordable: 
Obama Promised To Make Health Care Affordable. OBAMA: “I’ll be a president who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American, the same way I expanded health care in Illinois, by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)
“The Cost Of Health Insurance Skyrocketed In 2011 After Several Years Of Relatively Small Increases.” (Jane M. Von Bergen, “Health Insurance Costs Skyrocketing,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/27/11) 
Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage This Year. “Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)
•Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Survey. “Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)
Polls Show That Voters Don’t Support ObamaCare, One Of Obama’s “Signature Accomplishments.” “Heading into his re-election campaign, the president faces a conflicted public that does not support his steering of the economy, the most dominant issue for Americans, or his reforms to health care, one of his signature accomplishments.” (Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta, “AP-GfK Poll: More Than Half Say Obama Should Lose,” The Associated Press, 12/16/11)
•Half Of Americans Oppose ObamaCare While Only 29 Percent Support It. “The poll found unpopularity for last year’s health care reform bill, one of Obama’s major accomplishments. About half of the respondents oppose the health care law and support for it dipped to 29 percent from 36 percent in June.” (Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta, “AP-GfK Poll: More Than Half Say Obama Should Lose,” The Associated Press, 12/16/11)
Survey Found That Only 60 Percent Of Employers Offered Medical Coverage This Year, A 9 Percent Decrease From 2010. “Sixty percent of employers said they offered medical benefits this year, a decrease from 69 percent in 2010.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,” Bloomberg, 9/27/11)
•GALLUP: “The Percentage Of American Adults Who Get Their Health Insurance From An Employer Continues To Decline, Falling To 44.5% In The Third Quarter Of This Year.” (Elizabeth Mendes, “Employer-Based Health Insurance Continues To Trend Down,” Gallup, 11/11/11)
What Public Employee Unions are Doing to Our Country  


WILLIAM MCGURN is a vice president for News Corporation and writes the weekly “Main Street” column for the Wall Street Journal. From 2005 to 2008, he served as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Prior to that he was the chief editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal and spent more than ten years in Europe and Asia for Dow Jones. He has written for a wide variety of publications, including Esquire, the Washington Post, the Spectator of London and the National Catholic Register. He holds a B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and a master’s degree in communications from Boston University, and currently serves on the board of Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics and Culture.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 15, 2012, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Newport Beach, California


MANY SCHOLARS ARE better versed on the history of public employee unions than I am, but there is one credential I can claim that they cannot: I am a taxpayer in the People’s Republic of New Jerseystan. That makes me an authority on how public sector unions—especially at the state and local level—are thwarting economic growth, strangling the middle class, and generally hijacking the democratic process to serve their own ends rather than the public. 


Now in my experience, when one says the words “New Jersey,” people for some reason think it is a laugh line. Perhaps you know us from The Sopranos or Jersey Shore. You might think that such a state has nothing to teach you. If so, you would be very wrong. New Jersey offers something that can profit the entire nation: We are the perfect bad example. 


As conservatives, of course, we believe in virtue. We like to point to policies and practices that work—low taxes and light regulation for the economy, a strong national defense to keep us safe from foreign attack, and social policies that favor community over government. These are all valuable. But the bad example has its honored place as well: It’s how we illustrate our warnings. 


As parents, for example, selling virtue only takes us so far. To make our point when we see a character trait we don’t care for in our kids, we’re far more likely to say something like, “You don’t want to grow up to be like Uncle Bob, do you?” 


This is the reason Governor Chris Christie’s reforms have had such resonance. Almost anywhere he points, he has before him an example of how New Jersey’s bloated public sector is hurting growth, limiting the efficiency of government services, and squeezing middle class families. How many state governors and legislators might be more inclined to do the right thing if before they acted they first said to themselves, “We don’t want to be like New Jersey, do we?” 


These days, when conservatives get together to discuss the debilitating role played by government workers, we reassure ourselves with statements by FDR and labor leader Samuel Gompers about the fundamental incompatibilities between a union of private workers working for a private company and a union of government workers laboring for our city, state, or federal governments. We also trace the line of expansion to various events, including John F. Kennedy’s executive order that opened the path for collective bargaining for public employees at the federal level. 


I don’t want to rehash that today. Today I want to talk about the situation as we find it, and suggest that the first step toward a cure is to diagnose the illness accurately. This means changing the way we think of public sector unions. And in what I have to say, I will concentrate on public sector unions at the state and local levels. 


It’s not that I don’t consider the unionization of federal workers to be an issue. Plainly it is an issue when the teachers unions represent one of the largest blocs of delegates at Democratic conventions, when the largest single campaign contributor in the 2010 elections was the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, when union money at the federal level goes at an overwhelming rate to Democratic candidates, and when the Congressional Budget Office tells us that federal employees earn more than their counterparts in the private sector. Nonetheless, I believe that the greater challenge today—to state and city finances, to democratic representation, to the middle class—is at the state and local level. This is partly because state and city unions have the power to negotiate wages and benefits that their counterparts at the federal level largely do not. More fundamentally, it is because we cannot reform at the federal level without correcting a problem that is bringing our cities and states to bankruptcy. 


When I say we need to change our understanding, what I mean is that we have to recognize that public sector unions have successfully redefined key relationships in our economic and civic life. In making this argument, I will suggest that the elected politicians who represent us at the negotiating table are not in fact management, that our taxing and spending decisions at the city and state level are in practice decided by our public sector contracts, and that when you put this all together, what emerges is a completely different picture of the modern civil servant. In short, we work for him, not the other way around.


Who is Managing Whom?


Let me start with the relationship between government employee unions and our elected officials. On paper, it is true, mayors and governors sit across the table from city and state workers collectively bargaining for wages and benefits. On paper, this makes them management—representing us, the taxpayers. But in practice, these people often serve more as the employees of unions than as their managers. New Jersey has been telling here. Look at our former governor, Jon Corzine. 


You Hillsdale folks are a genteel sort. When you speak about the unions being in bed with the Democratic politicians, you mean it metaphorically. In New Jersey, we take it to Snooki levels: Mr. Corzine once shared a home with the New Jersey leader of the Communication Workers of America, Carla Katz. Back when he was running for governor, he was asked whether that relationship would compromise his ability to represent the taxpayers in negotiations with outfits such as CWA. “As the governor,” Mr. Corzine responded, “you represent eight-and-a-half million people. You don’t represent one union. You don’t represent one person. You represent the people who elected you.” 


That’s the way it ought to be. In real life, it turned out that during heated negotiations over a contested CWA contract, Mr. Corzine and Ms. Katz had a long email chain—subsequently published by the Newark Star Ledger, despite the governor’s legal attempts to keep them private—in which she pressed him on the union issues. 


But it wasn’t just the CWA. Scarcely six months after he was elected, Governor Corzine appeared before a rally of state workers in Trenton in support of a one percent sales tax designed to bring in revenues to a state hemorrhaging money. Not cutbacks, but a tax. Naturally, Mr. Corzine’s solution was the one the public sector unions wanted: Get the needed revenues by introducing a new tax. 


The twist was that there was someone in the New Jersey government who understood the problem—who understood that a new sales tax wouldn’t do much to fix New Jersey’s problems, and that the only way to get a handle on them was to get state workers to start contributing more to their health care and pensions. 


These were the pre-Chris Christie days, so the author of this bold proposal was the Senate president, Stephen Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney is not only interesting because he is a prominent and powerful Democrat. He is also interesting because in addition to his political office, he represents the state’s ironworkers. And what Mr. Sweeney proposed for the public sector unions was something private union members such as his ironworkers already paid for. It was also common sense: He knew that if New Jersey didn’t get a handle on its gold-plated pay and benefits for its government employees, it would squeeze out the private sector that hires people such as ironworkers.


If the leader of an ironworkers union could realize that, surely so could a governor who had earlier served as a high-powered executive for Goldman Sachs. But Mr. Corzine was having none of it. Instead, he told the crowd of state workers: “We’re gonna fight for a fair contract.” 

The question is, whom was he planning on fighting? Wasn’t he management in these negotiations? 


Six months later, Governor Corzine proved this was not simply a slip of the tongue. When workers at Rutgers University were planning to unionize, he turned up at their rally. This was too much even for the liberal Star Ledger, which—in an article entitled “Jon Corzine, Union Rep?”—noted that Mr. Corzine’s appearance at the rally raised the question whether he truly understood that “he represents the ‘management’ side in ongoing contract talks with state employees unions.” 


Manifestly, the problem is not that Mr. Corzine and other elected leaders like him—mostly Democrats—do not understand. In fact, they understand all too well that they are the hired help. The public employees they are supposed to manage in effect manage them. The unions provide politicians with campaign funds and volunteers and votes, and the politicians pay for what the unions demand in return with public money. 


In New Jersey as elsewhere, most leaders of public sector unions are not sleeping with the politicians who set their salary and benefits. They are, however, doing all they can to install and keep in office those they wish—while fighting hard against the ones they oppose. And until we recognize the real master in this relationship, we will never reform the system. 


The Tail Wagging the Dog


My second point relates to my first. Not only have the public unions too often become the dominant partner in the relationship with elected officials, but the contracts and the spending that goes with them are setting the other policy agenda. In other words, even when we recognize that the packages favored by public employees are too generous, we think of them simply as spending items. We need to wake up and recognize that in fact these spending items are the tail wagging the dog—that they set tax and borrowing decisions rather than follow from them.


Take the case of Northvale, a small, affluent town of about 4,600 people at the northeast tip of New Jersey. Its median income is about $99,000, comfortably above both the New Jersey and national levels, and its budget is $21.8 million. Of this, $13.2 million—or nearly two-thirds—goes to the schools. The lion’s share of that, of course, goes to salaries and benefits. 


Northvale’s school budget is voted on in the spring. That’s part of the scam, because turnout for these elections is much lower than it is in November for the regular elections. With lower turnout, it’s easier for teachers and other interested parties to dominate the elections. Thus the great bulk of Northvale’s budget is not determined in the regular elections, or by the mayor and city council. Effectively, it is determined by the education lobby and school officials—who in turn are chosen in elections involving only 20 percent of the electorate. 


From the other one-third of the budget, Northvale has to run its police force and fire department, remove snow, arrange for garbage pickup, and so on. That means there is not much discretionary spending left. Even when voters rebel—last spring Northvale voters overwhelmingly repudiated the budget—they are frequently ignored, and the back door system ensures there is little in the way of accountability. 


But there are consequences: This dynamic helps explain why, in the decade before Chris Christie was elected governor, the property taxes of New Jersey residents went up 70 percent.


Mr. Christie is not in charge of local spending. But he understands that this is part of an exceptionally unvirtuous circle. So he’s made some changes. Last year, for instance, with the help of allies such as Mr. Sweeney, he pushed a reform through the legislature that required public workers to start contributing to their health care and up their contributions to their pensions. It’s not nearly the same percentage as their counterparts in the private sector, but it’s a start. 


Mr. Christie also put through a property tax cap that forces cities to go to the people for a vote if they increase property taxes by more than two percent. And just last month, he signed a bill that will allow towns to move their school budget votes to the November ballot—not only saving money, but also ensuring that more citizens vote, not simply those who have a vested interest. 


At the same time, Mr. Christie has begun to campaign against abuses using language that people can understand. His most recent target is the practice of awarding six-figure checks to public employees who are allowed to accumulate—and cash out—unused sick pay. In New Jersey these payments are called “boat money,” largely because retired government workers often use the money to buy pleasure boats when they retire. Across the state, cities have liabilities of $825 million because of these boat checks. 


And what’s been the opposition’s response? Instead of agreeing to reasonable cuts, the Democrats keep thumping for a millionaire’s tax. New Jersey being New Jersey, the millionaire’s tax aims at people making far less than a million dollars. But even if it didn’t, it’s hard to see how driving millionaires out of the state will help it meet its huge and growing unfunded pension liabilities. 


To summarize my second point: You and I make spending decisions the way all households do. We take our income, and we live within our means. In sharp contrast, public employee unions have introduced a whole new dynamic: They negotiate pay and benefits in contracts we can’t rewrite. When the revenues to meet these obligations fall short, they push to raise taxes to make up the difference. 

The Corruption of Public Service


That leads me to my third and final point: If I am right that the public employee unions are in fact the managers in the relationship with politicians, and that public sector spending is driving tax and borrowing policy, the inescapable conclusion is that you and I are working for them. 


That’s not how we usually understand and speak of public service. Traditionally, the idea of a public servant is someone who is working for the public, with the implication that he or she is sacrificing a better material life to do so. But can anyone really define today’s relationship this way? Especially when health care and pensions are included, government workers increasingly seem to live better than the people who pay their salaries. How many of you walk into some local, state or federal office these days and leave thinking, “The men and women here are working for me”?


In some ways the change has been driven by larger changes in union life. From one out of three workers at its high point in the 1950s, today fewer than one out of 14 private sector workers belongs to a union, and the percentage continues to drop. Conversely, the unionization of government employees continues to grow, to the point where public sector union members now outnumber their private sector counterparts for the first time in American history.


In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Fred Siegel notes that public sector unions have 


become a vanguard movement within liberalism. And the reason for that is it’s the public sector that comes closest to the statist ideals of McGovern and post-McGovern liberals. And that is, there’s no connection between effort and reward. You’re guaranteed your job. You’re guaranteed your salary increase. There’s a kind of bureaucratic equality.




“This vanguard,” Siegel continues, “becomes in the eyes of many liberals the model for the middle class. Public-sector unions are what all workers should be like. Their benefits are the kind of benefits everyone should get.” So instead of the private sector defining the public, the public sector is thought to define the private.


As public employees unionize, their dues—often collected for the unions by the government—fund a permanent interest constantly lobbying for bigger government. To pay for this bigger and more expensive government, they advocate for higher taxes on those in the private sector. Only when they are threatened with layoffs are they inclined to compromise, and sometimes not even then. That is what I mean when I say that we work for them.


Where to Go From Here


One of the few silver linings of our tough economy today is that it is forcing tough decisions. Big city mayors and governors are having issues with their public employees, because we’ve reached a point where we simply cannot afford business as usual. With a sluggish economy—and fewer taxpayers—the problems that have piled up are becoming too difficult to ignore. 


Across the nation we have governors and mayors trying to solve their public employee problems with varying degrees of seriousness, from Chris Christie in New Jersey to Jerry Brown in California to the great experiments going on in the Rust Belt—in Indiana, which has done the best, and Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan. Only Illinois, led by Democratic Governor Pat Quinn, has opted for business as usual with a mammoth tax increase that is now being followed up, in today’s typical way of Democratic governance, with tax breaks for large companies threatening to leave Chicago because of the tax burden. 


In most of these places, there’s probably little we can do about the contracts that exist. What we can do is bring in new hires under more reasonable contracts and pro-rate contributions for existing employees. Even marginal changes can have a big impact, as Wisconsin found out when Governor Scott Walker’s collective bargaining reforms for public workers helped restore many of the state’s school districts back to fiscal health. 


My father was a federal employee, as an FBI agent. I spent some time as a government worker in the White House. I also know many fine and devoted people on the public payroll who work hard, are good at what they do, and earn everything they get. But there are also those who work without results. I believe Americans are a generous people who can recognize the difference. We need to restore our public sector to a place where those in charge can make those distinctions and allocate rewards and resources accordingly.


In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do is speak honestly. That is what Mr. Christie is doing in New Jersey. His style isn’t for everyone. Yet his popularity suggests that Americans appreciate a politician willing to talk about the reality of public employee unions today—and the unreasonable costs they are imposing on our society. 


We’ll never return to the ideal of public service until the rest of us start speaking honestly as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2012 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325. 

2012 Twinsburg Duathlon.
When: Sunday, June 5th 6:50AM
Where: Chamberlin Park (back by the service garage along the path)
What: Handing out water to runners in the 2012 Twinsburg Duathlon


A bit more of the what: The Twinsburg Parks & Recreation Department and the event coordinator will set out tables and coolers of water and Gatorade. It's our responsibility to set up the tables, fill small cups up with the liquid and then have it ready for the runners as they pass. We'll hand it to them as they pass the water station. Once the majority of the runners have passed, we'll clean up the used cups from the ground (a rake works well for this). The runners will come by twice; first at the beginning of the race and then again starting  starting around 8:15AM. By about 9:30AM most of the runners should have passed by the water station. The Parks & Recreation Department will pick up the tables and supplies after the event.


How we'll make it fun: All TRC volunteers are encouraged to wear their club shirts and/or patriotic apparel. We'll have a radio playing music and we'll put out our banner. Last year we placed flags around the water stop.
around 8:15AM. By about 9:30AM most of the runners should have passed by the water station. The Parks & Recreation Department will pick up the tables and supplies after the event.
PLEASE JOIN US!!!​

How we'll make it fun: All TRC volunteers are encouraged to wear their club shirts and/or patriotic apparel. We'll have a radio playing music and we'll put out our banner. Last year we placed flags around the water sto