What happens when public workers don't have to join a union? They don"t

(My new American Thinker post)

Wisconsin continues to lead the way. We hear that public sector workers are leaving the union, according to The Capital Times in Madison:   

"In 2011, the year Act 10 was approved, the four councils that make up the state organization reported a combined income of $14.9 million. In 2012, the first full year that the law was in place, the revenue had dropped roughly 45 percent, to $8.3 million.     

While AFSCME's income occasionally fluctuates to reflect infusions of cash it receives from other labor groups that support its political agenda, most of its money comes directly from member dues.   If we look specifically at dues revenue, the picture is also ugly. In total, dues revenue for the groups dropped 40 percent, from $12 million to $7.1 million."

Why is anyone surprised?  Union membership has two problrms:

First, it was mandatory and people hate to be told what to do; and.

Second, the public sector union in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, was nothing but a collection machine for Democrats.

For example, the Democrat presidential candidate received 53% of the vote in 2012, 56% in 2008, 50% in 2004, 48% in 2000 and 49% in 1996.  

My guess is that public sector workers voted along these lines and yet their dues did not.  In other words, does anyone seriously think that the Romney campaign got 46% of the union contributions?

Let me be clear.  I have nothing against unions but they should never be mandatory, especially in the public sector.   Furthermore, their contributions to political campaigns should reflect the wishes of the membership not the leadership. 

P. S. You can hear CANTO TALK here & follow me on Twitter @ scantojr.

Listen To Politics Internet Radio Stations with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

---

Tags: Wisconsin and public unions  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!

A speech to wake up a very sleepy base

(My new American Thinker post)

Maybe we should get back to a written "State of the Union." It worked for Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. 

Or maybe we should "e-mail" the speech to everyone who cares to read it!

The current version of the SOTU is one gigantic waste of time. It is a campaign speech. It's just another acceptance speech except that he's already won the nomination.

Last night's performance speaks volumes about President Obama's political problems. 

He did not mention the Affordable Health Care Act until the 40th minute!  Isn't this his premiere accomplishment?  Then he goes after the House's repeal votes but overlooks that it's Democrats running for reelection who are worried about it.

Overall, a well delivered speech that will matter little.

"Hope and change" is starting year 6 and there are huge concerns about President Obama's competence, as Brent M. Decker pointed out:

"The 2014 State of the Union address was devoid of many new ideas and full of old ones, such as a commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, something Obama promised to do before he was president but didn't doggedly pursue. Barack Obama can deliver a good speech, but the public has had enough of speeches and wants to see progress."   

After the speech, I caught a focus groups on Megyn Kelly's show. Someone said that he looks tired and exhausted.  I don't know whether the president is tired or exhausted but he is really out of ideas. Unfortunately for him, and the "yes we can" screamers, it won't get any better as reality squeezes "hope and change" further in 2014.

P. S. You can hear CANTO TALK here & follow me on Twitter @ scantojr.

Listen To Politics Internet Radio Stations with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

---

Tags: The State of the Union speech 2014  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!