SamSaid!

UNIONS

     It was in 1960 when President John Kennedy signed the now famous executive order permitting the unionization of public service employes and imposing the obligation to bargain onto public service agencies  –  first the Feds and thereafter the States. Few at that time recognized the enormity of the decision by JFK and the tremendous fallout to follow. Private sector unionization had stalled, and the Exec Order opened up a whole new world of union power. . Nowadays, it is not a matter of striking in the big industries  –  it is bankrupting Municipalities and cities.

     The problem isn't difficult to understand. In the private sector, there is a basic quid pro quo  —  the Union right to strike vs the profit motive of the employers. Not so in the public sector. In these cases, the emplyers (i.e., the taxpayers) are not even present. They literally have no say-so as the union leaders and school administrators loot the treasuries. The Unions have no obligation to quit asking, and the administrators (or lawyers) have no real incentive to say NO. It just goes on and on, and we all pay for it. Now we see retired public service people getting pensions (at age 55) that exceed their salaries at work. And those of us paying the taxes have the dubious distinction of paying people to work at the same time we are paying them not to work. The Union people of course see nothing wrong with that arrangement since it is not their money and they are indifferent to tax consequences.

     When you think about funds for education, think twice about where the money comes from and where it goes. For every dollar that goes to public education, 80 cents goes into the Union coffers to perpetuate their monopoly over the public schools. Do you wonder why they they will fight to the death to prevent school vouchers that would allow education to experience private sector innovations? Just take a good look at those doozies stomping around with the picket signs. Remember, they are “educating” your kids. Not very re-assuring, is it??

     Oh yes. My sister and wife were both teachers in the public schools. They are disgusted at the current chaos of Union corruption and teacher incompetence  –to say nothing of high school kids who can't read or write! Who in his (her) right mind would support the notion of a test to graduate from high school even though the test  is geared to 8th graders?

     The great protectors of the working man. Really??

DECISIONS

     Some decisions are easy to make  –  others are not. And many people who have had experience in leading an organization understand how painfully difficult decision making can be. Consider for a moment what might go thru the mind of George Bush as his day begins. What should we do about North Korea, Iran, Iraq, AIDS, gasoline prices, the health of Social Security, medical expenses, education, military funding, maintaining State Secrets, political races, court nominees, press conferences, International guests, vetoes ……  and the list goes on and on. Amd when the President does make a decision, it often can be “no-win” since the opposing proponents might not be satisfied. But with all of the unpleasantness that may result, the need for a decision does not go away. Some critics will be unhappy if he makes a decision, and others will be unhappy if he does not.

     It is an interesting process, and the road to a decision often runs thru consultants, academicians, experts of one kind or another, staffers paid for recommendations, friends, advisors, gurus, family members, top level aides, etc., etc., etc. The most meaningful comment emanating from this process came from President Harry Truman in the days following World War II. When facing tough decisions, Harry said, “The buck stops here”. How true.

     I had the pleasure of working for a guy who understood this process very well. When crunch time came for decision making, he dispensed with advice and recommendations with a very concise way to cut to the core of an issue. He said succinctly (to his staff of advisors and experts) : “I am not interested in your advice, recommendations or suggestions. I have only one question for you  —  “Specifically, what would you do if you were in my shoes?”   If you ever need to find a way to separate the men from the boys, here is a perfect way to do it. Just don't stand in front of the water fountain or the men's room. People can get trampled that way.

NEW YORK TIMES

     The big question in Washington DC nowadays is whether the New York Times should be punished for divulging highly classified information  –  even after having been requested by the President (and others) not to publish their story. The Times, of course, stiff-armed the President et al and published the story on their front page.

     Several aspects of this story are not in dispute. The voluminous information published by the NYT concerned the US Governmet tracking financial transactions all over the world to get a handle on those who finance the bloody rampages of Al Qaeda, the “home base” of the Islamin terrorists. There is no question that the data gathered has been very helpful in our war against terrorism. By the same token, there is no doubt that the disclosed data is of significant value to the terrorists who are trying to kill all Americans and defeat our efforts in Iraq. There is also no question that the NYT (especially front page and Op-Ed pages) are left wingers opposed to the Iraq war, George Bush and anyone who stands with him, the Republicans, and the entire Bush administration. Translation, anything that is opposed to George Bush is good, and there are no holds barred in disclosing information that is damaging to George Bush.

     With ultra left wing writers such as Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd (wonder where she parks her broom?), it doesn't take a genius long to confirm the radical left ideology of the Times. And their unctuous grey haired leader, Bill Keller,  comes on TV to support their publication of the story based on the flimsy “right to know” premise  — totally ignoring that Americans are being killed by the very people they are helping. When I see the notion of free speech carried that far I am filled with both contempt and shame. As you might suspect, I do not subscribe to the NYT and probably will not subscribe until well after the Pope gets married.

     If indeed Al Qaeda benefits from the contemptible actions of the Times, what should be the remedy ? Treason? Seems to me that the very definition might fit. It would be a real battle in Congress –  CSpan might even get a top rating for a few months. I sure would watch. But maybe a better solution would be to deny NYT press passes to attend White House briefings or Presidential Press Conferences.  Let's say that the ban would not go beyong the end of the Iraqi War(whenever that might be)  — barring any other underhanded stunts by the Times.  And if they don't like it, tough! More than anything, I hope and pray that we will not just pass over the indiscretions of the NYT as being “just another bump in the road”. With Congressional elections coming up in November, I hope that the good guys will regularly beat the NYT drum so that all Americans will know where the Times and their so-called “unbiased” word merchants stand. Since the NYT is so openly hostile to George Bush, is there some reason that we cannot convey our view of the Times and its editorial bias in no uncretain terms?

     Zinging Republicans is one thing: giving aid and comfort to the enemy is something else.