VIDEO: Unionized auto workers smoking pot and drinking beer on lunch break ... at union hall parking lot
Wow. Just wow. If you don't think union job protections are detrimental to companies and governments, I urge you to watch this.
What's most amazing here is that the same reporter busted a different set of unionized auto workers for drinking on their lunch breaks just a few months ago.
And because of the billions in bailout cash Chrysler received, taxpayers had a direct role in paying those workers to get high.
Bankrupting cities, protecting the jobs of incompetent teachers, and getting high on their lunch breaks while their company receives government subsidies - what will unions do next to "help" America?
Read moreNorth Las Vegas being 'eaten alive' by its public-sector unions
So reports Business Insider, and the evidence is pretty compelling.
- North Las Vegas, a rapidly growing Las Vegas suburb, faces an $8.6 million budget deficit after the city's police and firefighters unions won a court decision prohibiting layoffs that would have closed the city's budget gap.
- The city now has an ending fund balance of just $7.2 million, or 4.8%, which is just enough to make one payroll. If the balance falls below 4.1%, it could trigger a state takeover of the city's finances.
- A state takeover would raise taxes on North Las Vegas residents to the maximum levels allowed by law. Residents already pay the highest property taxes in the region.
My "favorite" is Chicago.
Guess who's standing up to the unions destroying the city's payroll? Noted union buster and evil conservative ... Mayor Rahm Emanuel? Yep, that's how dire the crises caused by out-of-control government salaries have gotten. Even liberals like Emanuel have to face reality.
- Employee compensation make [sic] up 83% of Chicago's spending. Despite major layoffs, worker costs have risen nearly 10% since 2007 due to cushy union deals that increased wages and benefits for the city's public employees.
- Chicago's unfunded pension obligation is $44.8 billion - nearly eight times the city's annual revenue.
- Mayor Rahm Emanuel has threatened to lay off 600 city workers if unions don't agree to cost-cutting concessions. He has also proposed opening up some city services, like sanitation, to competitive bidding.
Good news: NV government getting a little smaller
Gov. Brian Sandoval today agreed to eliminate 18 executive branch committees, councils and advisory panels as recommended by a task force, including the clearly outdated State Year 2000 Coordinating Council, among others. ...
The 18 committees, councils, commissions and task forces Sandoval will eliminate are:Props to Sandoval for actually taking a concrete step to reduce government. Eighteen down - hundreds and hundreds of million in state spending to go.
- The Nevada Interagency Council on Homelessness;
- The Strategic Plan for People with Disabilities Accountability Committee;
- The Strategic Plan for Rural Health Care Accountability Committee;
- The Strategic Plan for Senior Services Accountability Committee;
- Governor's Advisory Committee on Radiation Effects;
- Governor's Management Task Force;
- Nevada Commission on Minority Business Enterprises;
- Governor's Word Processing Committee;
- Governor's Task Force on Employment Training;
- Governor's Small Business Council;
- Governor's Literacy Coalition Advisory Council;
- Governor's Committee on Volunteers and Volunteering;
- Information Services Policy Committee;
- Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection;
- State Year 2000 Coordinating Council;
- Governor's Appeal Hearings Board for State of Nevada's Self-Funded Insurance Program;
- Silver Source Steering Committee; and
- Governor's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities.
The panels recommended to continue under new executive orders with new expiration dates and new reporting requirements are:
- The 2-1-1 Partnership;
- The Commission on Autism Spectrum Disorder;
- The Nevada Broadband Task Force;
- The Nevada Communications Steering Committee;
- The Nevada Crime Commission;
- The Nevada Homeland Security Working Group;
- The Nevada Re-Entry Task Force; and
- The State Citizens Corps Council.
Video: Education spending made simple
A great new video from the Heritage Foundation that explains, in terms of a simple analogy, why it doesn't make sense to keep increasing education spending - at least if your goal is increasing student achievement.
The bridge to "outer" nowhere?
In his Washington Examiner column today, Cato's Gene Healy calls the space program the "biggest bridge to nowhere."
In light of the space shuttle program's cancellation, Healy points out that the average American enjoys little benefit from a federally-funded space program and that space exploration should be the domain of private enterprise. In fact, in a 2010 Rasmussen poll, the majority of Americans agreed with that statement.
As Healy points out, defenders of the space program primarily point to the program's value as one that provides national glory, calling it "spacecraft as soulcraft."
Healy doesn't get into the flawed basis of the standard rationale for a subsidized space industry - that the space industry leads to the development of new commercial technologies. This tired argument, however, is as flawed as any other argument for government to provide anything other than "pure public goods." I could point out the standard Austrian criticism that value is subjective and, because of this, policymakers can never make an unambiguous claim to improve social welfare through any type of government spending.
However, without getting into a pedantic discussion of economic theory to prove the wastefulness of a government space program, I can simply highlight that every dollar spend (or credit used) by government is a dollar (or unit of credit) that must first be taken out of the private sector. This pilfering limits the capital formation that would otherwise finance private-sector research and development on technologies that consumers actually demand. Public-sector R&D spending is typically far less efficient than private-sector R&D precisely because each dollar spent does not have to be justified by an anticipated consumer demand. Hence, government is free to waste R&D money on projects that may have no ultimate value to most consumers, even if a relatively small proportion of technologies developed through public R&D spending are eventually adapted for commercial use.
The lesson here: R&D should always be the realm of private enterprise because individual entreprenuers are subject to market discipline over their expenditures whereas government bureaucrats are not.
Government bureaucrat: Beauty of taxes is citizens don't decide how they're spent
A short quotation, from Malcolm Ahlo of the Tobacco Control Program at the Southern Nevada Health District, that's a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with government in general and many bureaucrats in particular:
"The beauty of our taxes is you [taxpayers] don't decide how they are spent," Ahlo said. "Someone might say 'I don't want my tax money to pay for welfare or go to the war because I don't agree with it,' but you can't decide that."That's right, taxpayers - your only job is to pony up your dough, so bureaucrats like Ahlo can decide how it's spent - and how they're spending it in this case is unbelievably wasteful.
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. At least that's what some government bureaucrats want you to believe.
Has Ahlo never heard of elections? Or is he so used to avoiding accountability that he considers this is an acceptable attitude to have?
Once again, let's turn to the brilliance of Fredric Bastiat in The Law for a spectacular takedown of this vanity.
Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.Grantlandesque footnotes:
In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals -- the farmer wastes some seeds and land -- to try out an idea.
But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!
It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea -- the fruit of classical education -- has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.
Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man -- and a principle of discernment in man's intellect -- they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.
The Socialists Despise Mankind
According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men -- governors and legislators -- the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.
Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea -- the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind. ...
Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves! [Emphasis added]
1. Ahlo's quote is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole article will get your blood boiling and provide a concrete example of how there's a lot of waste to cut in government.
2. If Ahlo had said that the beauty of our democratic republic form of government is that it's not a direct democracy and public opinion doesn't immediately change the actions of elected officials, that would have been fine. Not having a direct democracy is a very good thing.
But that doesn't mean that taxpayers don't have the ultimate voice or that they have conceded control over their tax dollars to bureaucrats like Ahlo. If Nevada legislators or Clark County commissioners are looking for wasteful spending to cut, Alho and his Tobacco Control Program at the Southern Nevada Health District would be a logical place to start.
Tragic: Death panel about to kill 22-year-old
Socialized medicine leads to death panels - government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies by approving or denying medical treatment.
Don't believe me? Consider this case in England, where National Health Service officials have denied a 22-year-old teaching assistant a lifesaving operation.
A young woman who is starving to death after being diagnosed with a paralysed stomach has been told that NHS bosses refuse to fund an operation to save her.There is socialized medicine in all its glory - medicine by "application" and procedures that must "fall in line with the provider trust's priorities."
Rudi Hargreaves, 22, has shrunk from a healthy 10st to a skeletal 5st 10lb after being diagnosed with the crippling condition last year.
Within weeks of being diagnosed with gastroparesis, Rudi found her size 12 clothes were hanging off her - as her stomach became unable to digest food at a normal rate.
The condition can be treated with a £14,000 operation to fit a gastric pacemaker - although this is still considered to be an experimental treatment.
But health chiefs have refused to fund the surgery, saying 'insufficient supporting information' has been provided by her GP. ...
A spokesperson for NHS Hull said: 'To date, the application in question has not been agreed as, crucially, insufficient supporting information has been provided to allow due consideration to take place.
'Any requested procedures must also fall in line with the provider trust's priorities for service development and delivery. [Emphasis added]
Why would anyone want that type of system?
Missing lawmaker alert: Have you seen this man?
In one sense, this man isn't missing at all. Pete Goicoechea was one of the most prominent figures during the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session and led Assembly Republicans as their minority leader.
But take a closer look at that undated photo from the Ely Times. In another sense, the man in that picture - the man who earned the right to wear that "Mean 15" hat by his courageous stand against new taxes in 2003 - has been missing for years.
For anyone who isn't familiar with the "Mean 15," or, more accurately, the "Fearless 15," 15 Assemblymen and women earned that badge of honor during the 2003 session when they stood up to Gov. Kenny Guinn and his plan to implement a gross-receipts tax in Nevada.
Thanks to a 1996 voter-approved initiative, the Nevada Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority in each legislative chamber to approve tax increases. That meant the 15 members of the Republican Assembly caucus [opposed to tax increases] controlled the minimum amount of votes required to block new taxes [during the 2003 Legislative Session]. Quickly earning the nickname "The Mean 15," the caucus unanimously rejected the governor's tax proposals.That group of 15 lawmakers then rejected tax increases during the 2003 session and a special session held right after the regular session. During a second special session, however, one of the "Mean 15" caved and voted to pass an $833 million tax increase, which at the time was the largest tax increase in Nevada's history.
But while The Mean 15 had the votes to block a record-breaking tax increase, Guinn's supporters in the legislature - majority Democrats in the assembly and a bipartisan group in the senate led by Republican Majority Leader Bill Raggio - were able to pass the appropriations bills with mere simple majorities. Lawmakers appropriated $4.83 billion in general fund spending - even though they lacked the supermajorities necessary to raise taxes to the level required to fund their spending.
Goicoechea, however, stuck by his principles to end, voting against the record-setting tax hike.
No one can take those moments of courage away from Goicoechea. He faced immense pressure from special-interest groups, Democrats and the leftists in his own party, led by Guinn and Raggio, and stood his ground - even through two special sessions.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. This past session, Goicoechea led Assembly Republicans in tax-increase negotiations with Democrats. He ultimately voted to raise taxes by extending over $600 million in "sunset" taxes.
Consequently, Goicoechea earned low scores, especially for a Republican, on both NPRI's 2009 and 2011 Legislative Report Card. In 2009, he scored only 34.86 percent (p. 18) and was not considered an ally of economic liberty. In 2011, he earned a 52.88 percent (p. 18). A lawmaker earning a score above 50 percent is generally considered an ally of economic freedom.
What changed from 2003 to the present for Goicoechea? Did he cave to political pressure? Did he have a genuine change in beliefs? Did he feel the need to cut deals to benefit his constituents in other areas?
I don't know, but I ask you again: Have you seen this man? The man in that hat? Nevada could use more courage from its lawmakers.
Video: How some businesses use government to stifle competition and increase their bottom line
Some people have a misconception about fiscal conservatives and libertarians. They think that supporting the free market means you think businesses - especially big ones - can do no wrong.
Nope. Supporting free-market principles means exactly that - you support a market where individuals are free to make their own choices. Now, consumers often overwhelming prefer one company or a handful of companies in a specific industry. Those companies grow larger, because they are the best at meeting individuals' preferences. In other industries, however, individuals won't overwhelmingly select one company and many smaller firms will compete for business.
So a truly free market will lead to some very large businesses (although these businesses' profits and size are not permanent or guaranteed) and some medium and small ones.
Some businessmen and women, though, want to take a shortcut to success. Instead of earning money by meeting consumer demand better than their competitors, they seek to use the power of government to limit market competition, which leads to greater profits for themselves at the expense of consumers. While these businesses can grow very large, the reason for their success represents the antithesis of free-market principles.
How does that play out in real life? Watch this excellent, excellent video from ReasonTV to find out how a Washington, D.C. businessman wants to use government regulation to limit competition and increase his profits in the taxicab business - and how his actions would hurt hundreds of entrepreneurs.
As detailed by Frederic Bastiat in his brilliant short book The Law, there are two main ways the law is perverted: socialistic/communistic wealth distribution and the politically powerful using the law to enrich themselves (in the above video, the businessman who would benefit from the taxicab medallion system). Here Bastiat explains why some business owners turn to government to ensure their profits.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man -- in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.I can't urge you strongly enough to read Bastiat's The Law. It's available for free online here and will show you the dangers of government overreach by socialists and by crony capitalists.
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
Unemployed taxpayers now subsidizing university professors not to work
The state worker unemployment rate has hit .21 percent and now Nevada is subsidizing university professors not to work.
Why can't we all work in government again? Oh yeah, we need taxpayers, currently facing a 12.1 percent unemployment rate, to pay for this.
Zane and the rest of the 48 professors took a voluntary buyout, which forced them to give up their jobs by June 30, the end of the fiscal year. It offered tenured professors 1.5 times their annual salary to, basically, go away.The saddest part of this arrangement is that many of the professors were about to retire, or run for Congress, soon anyway.
The point was to save money in the long run, and it will work. The university will pay out $7.4 million to the departing faculty members but will save almost $5 million a year in salaries, though some of those faculty members will have to be replaced. The $5 million also does not include benefits.
The next time a liberal, bureaucrat or union boss starts talking about "devastating cuts," remember this story and don't believe them.
Don't be fooled again.
