Friday, March 4, 2011

Public Mix

Scott Rasmussen finds that sixty seven percent of Americans disapprove of the Wisconsin Democrats' bolting the state.  He also finds that the American and Wisconsin publics slightly back Governor Scott Walker over the Wisconsin unions, 47% to 42%. Republicans tend to back the governor while Democrats tend to back the unions.  At the same time, 50% of the American public supports public sector unions on principle.

An interesting puzzle is why a large percentage of Americans, at least 38% of the American public, supports public sector unionism while they are not union members.  Do the 38% or more wish they were in unions?  There may be something in these numbers. 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

10 comments:

Atlanta Roofing said...

Let's be clear on both sides of the debate that we are not talking about unions in general, we are talking about what types of collective bargaining rights should be granted or withdrawn from government workers and why/why not.

March 4, 2011 at 2:51 AM
Mitchell Langbert said...

I agree. Public and private sector workers are different because of the lack of a public sector market and the public's inability to evaluate public sector decisions.

Public sector unions are lobbying organizations that can manipulate the political system to their advantage, and often have.

Not all public sector workers are overpaid, but certain categories such as school teachers are, especially in New York. I'll bet there are plenty of abuses in Wisconsin but the voters are not equipped to debate the question. "Experts" can claim that the workers are fairly paid, but they omit key variables from their analyses, proving the old adage GIGO--garbage in, garbage out.

I favor privatization. Let the workers compete on the market with everyone else.

March 4, 2011 at 3:34 AM
Anonymous said...

Public sector unions are lobbying organizations that can manipulate the political system to their advantage, and often have.

So what. It is called the First Amendment. And By the Way, corporations do the same.

March 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM
Mitchell Langbert said...

Yes, you're right. Public sector workers directly parallel corrupt corporations that manipulate the state to their interest. That's why I favor limited government. Socialism leads to manipulation of the state by the more powerful, corporations and public sector unions, at the expense of the less powerful, the poor schnook who busts his ass paying taxes that subsidize greedy investment bankers and public sector unions, both of whom destroy innovation and economic progress.

March 4, 2011 at 6:58 PM
Mitchell Langbert said...

And the First Amendment is hardly an argument to support an economic special interest. I've no interest in interfering with gangsters' free speech rights, nor with the free speech rights of public unions. I just don't think it's fair that the public should subsidize them.

March 4, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...

In the Budget Repair Bill in Wisconsin, there is a provision to sell Power Plants using NO BID CONTRACTS. Would you support that provision?

the poor schnook who busts his ass paying taxes that subsidize greedy investment bankers and public sector unions, both of whom destroy innovation and economic progress.

Do you support an increase in the taxes of the Investment Banker who has fleeced the poor schnook?

March 4, 2011 at 9:25 PM
Mitchell Langbert said...

You don't know the ideas behind libertarianism. Not your fault. Also, I appreciate your interest in debating.

Please don't do me wrong by assuming that I support some ridiculous Republican budget bill or that I side with the GOP all the time. If you read through my blog you'll see that I attack the GOP almost as much as the Democrats.

Libertarians don't believe in taxation. Part of the reason is that government lacks the ability to assess taxes wisely. So the investment banker who fleeces the schnook belongs in jail, and the real question is why government was unable to distinguish between Bernie Madoff (who was investigated and reviewed by the SEC in the early 1990s) and legitimate businessmen.

If the SEC was incompetent to detect Madoff, why would the IRS be able to detect who is fleecing others?

Moreover, it is chiefly THROUGH government that investment bankers fleece the public. Without the Federal Reserve Bank Wall Street would not exist in its current form, and possibly not exist at all.

The support for the Federal Reserve Bank came first from the Progressives, then from the Roosevelt Democrats. In 1971 Nixon said "We are all Keynesians now." Since then Wall Street's power has expanded exponentially.
Phony leftists like Paul Krugman claim to care about income inequality while shrilly crying for Fed-supportive policies (including the bailout and massive monetary expansion) that is the primary cause of income inequality.

There's a lot to read on this topic. Murray Rothbard's "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" is a good place to start.

March 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM
Anonymous said...

Okay. Would you support this tax break. I just want to know where you stand on taxes. Your position is very nebulous.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50688.html

March 5, 2011 at 12:10 AM
Mitchell Langbert said...

I don't have an answer because I don't know enough about the tax break. In general, I dislike corporate lobbying. On the other hand I favor lower taxes. Rather than a piecemeal tax break I would urge across the board spending cuts to bring the budget in line with current tax levels. Then, I would favor tax cuts that are accompanied by further spending cuts. Spending cuts need to come first.

I don't think my vies are nebulous. I generally support tax reductions. I agree, though, that the tax system has been abused for corporate interests and I do not support that either.

March 5, 2011 at 2:29 AM
Anonymous said...

As we slide further and further behind:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/06/hayabusa-high-speed-train-japan_n_832044.html#249685

March 6, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)