Scott Walker Does Half of What is Necessary

I always wondered if Walker’s fight with the public sector unions was, in a sense, accidental or part of a clearly conceived plan. Was he fighting them on principal because a public sector union is by nature a conspiracy against the common good, or was he just fighting them because he needed to reform Wisconsin’s budget? Well, now that he’s come out in favor of abolishing public sector unions at the federal level, I think I have my answer: Walker realized that public-sector unions are baleful.

If we are to restore a full republic in our nation, we simply must get rid of those elements which are twisting our institutions to serve particular interests. Among the many elements corrupting our government are public sector unions. And do keep in mind that it is public sector unions. Private sector unions are ok – in fact, private sector unions are good and beneficial for the most part (they, too, can become corrupt and corrupting – but when they do, they tend to destroy themselves by destroying the private sector companies they have unionized). I wouldn’t mind if 100% of private sector workers were unionized – though as a Distributist I’d prefer a more guild-like worker organization; but we’ll leave that aside from our discussion. The main thing: no problem with workers uniting to secure good pay and benefits in the private sector – massive problem with government employees getting together to work back-room deals with elected politicians. If you wonder why it is exceptionally difficult to fire an incompetent government employee; if you wonder why they are almost invariably placed on paid administrative leave when they mess up horribly; if you wonder why their pensions are so lavish that they are bankrupting cities and States – if you ever wonder about all that, then the answer to your wonder is public sector unions. By working corrupt deals with elected officials – primarily in terms of providing them with vast sums of financial and in-kind political donations – public sector unions have essentially insulated government employees from accountability.

But it goes even further than that. What is the interest of the public-sector unions? That there be as many government employees as possible and that they be as highly paid as possible regardless of the best interests of the people. Public-sector unions have a built-in preference for Big Government. There is no public issue which they will not insist requires an army of government employees, highly paid and almost impossible to get rid of. There can be no real reform of government unless public-sector unions are removed from the mix. They will fight tooth and nail – and buy as many politicians as necessary – in order to prevent even the most basic and common-sense reforms. They will fight to the last breath to preserve every government program, no matter how out-dated, worthless or entirely counter-productive it is. Public-sector unions don’t care if government programs work – they only care that they keep going, with increased budget, and more highly-paid, unionized government employees to staff them. They do not have the interests of the people in mind, at all. Concerning themselves with the needs and desires of the people is self-destructive for public sector unions – because if they did even for a moment pay heed to the needs and desires of the people, they’d have to work for reductions in the size of government, reductions in pay and benefits for government employees, reductions in the number of government employees. That would be suicidal for them.

In the absurdly unbalanced donations of the public sector unions we see this – far better than 90% of all public sector union donations go to Democrats: the party of Big Government. But the public sector unions are not the only group out there with a vested interest in Big Government. The other side of the coin is Big Corporation. Big Corporation likes Big Government for a variety of reasons. There are big government contracts to be had. There are tax breaks and subsidies to be obtained. And there is the fact that a massive regulatory State makes it very difficult for new entrants to the market to compete with the established Big Corporations. Big Corporation is a bit more even-handed in donations than the public sector unions, but their ultimate aim is roughly the same: ever more government (the only difference is that the public sector unions will work to elect Democrats ostensibly pledged to increasing taxes on Big Corporation – but in the reality, the Democrats in office will make sure that their own Big Corporation donors are taken care of via tax breaks). Between the two forces – public sector unions and Big Corporation – there is a massive force in the United States in favor of Big Government…and Big Government is the greatest threat to human life and liberty around. Big Government has to go – but it won’t go as long as powerful forces are around to protect it and expand it. Walker’s proposal to curb public sector unions is getting half the job done – now we need him (or other candidates) to tackle the other half: Big Corporation.

The 2016 election cycle has so far shaped up as an anti-establishment, populist election cycle. The people are angry and frustrated. Left and right, no one is pleased with the course of events. The rise of Trump and Sanders (and to a lesser extent Carson) is predicated upon these feelings. The Ruling Class in both parties simply does not see it – and doesn’t want to see it; likely because they know that they, the Ruling Class, are on the chopping block. The Ruling Class will work to get rid of Trump and Sanders. At this point, they are far less interested in whether or not a Democrat or a Republican wins the White House than whether or not the Ruling Class retains the White House. If the race is Trump vs Hillary then we’ll see a lot of GOP leaders running over to Hillary; if it is Bush vs Sanders, you’ll see a lot of Democrat leaders running over to Bush. Their place at the trough is at risk and they’ll fight to keep it.

As I’ve said before, Trump isn’t my guy. The only reason I’d vote for him is because all of the Democrats are functionally pro-Ruling Class. Sanders is campaigning as the outsider and Progressives are eating it up, but that is because they simply cannot intellectually understand that high income taxes and increased government just means more power for the people they don’t like. To a Progressive, high income taxes means high taxes on the Koch brothers…they don’t understand that it really means high taxes on their local plumbing contractor. They further don’t understand that a larger army of government bureaucrats means less actual money to help the poor (they don’t see that by hiring 100,000 more college educated bureaucrats at $80,000.00 per year there will be less money to help out that single mother with three kids). I’d much prefer if Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker were the GOP nominee – and I think that either one of them could do it, if they’ll take the next step: start attacking Big Corporation.

It would work to knock off Trump because for all of Trump’s populist, traitor-to-his-class rhetoric, he is of the Big Corporation element of our problem. Someone like Walker or Jindal could far more credibly attack both ends of the problem than Trump – and be far more credible in the general election against any Democrat. Hillary for obvious reasons, but even against Sanders it would work just as well: while Sanders would be out there slamming Big Corporation he wouldn’t have any real plan against them and, meanwhile, he’d be defending Big Government directly by defending public sector unions. Make the election of 2016 about the People vs the Powerful – that is what we really need.

Now, just how would an attack on Big Corporation look? An end to all subsidies. An end to all favorable tax treatment – no more special tax breaks. Either everyone in the market gets them, or no one does. An end to regulations which Big Corporation can handle, but small companies can’t. Rely on it, the people don’t like it when big, wealthy entities get special treatment – and they have been for ages in the United States. And by attacking these entities, the GOP can break forever the connection in the public mind between it and the super-rich.

The long term effect of such a fight is that if Big Corporation and public sector unions are removed from their ability to affect policy, then government reform can actually happen. We could finally start to dismantle Big Government. Not all of it, and not all at once, of course – and some parts of it are permanent (Social Security, in some form, will never go away). But those parts of it that harass the people and eat out their substance can be removed. And as Big Government crumbles, so does the modern, political left, which lives and dies by government. It is only because there is a Big Government dispensing vast sums of money to favored interests that there is a left, at all. All these people you see on the left filing lawsuits and pressuring the bureaucracy for the imposition of leftist ideology get their money, one way or another, because Big Government exists. It is not politically popular, for instance, when a leftist group sues a locality to have a cross removed from a hill outside of town…but that leftist group is a creature of Big Government; it is a tax-exempt organization, and it gets donations from Big Corporation which fund its activities. End the tax exempt status; end the special position of Big Corporation and their funding dries up…they simply aren’t there to force us to go along with their absurd views. And that is just one small example of 10,000 which can be given.

The future can be ours, if we are willing to fight the battle – and fight the whole battle, not just parts of it. A democratic republic is a wonderful thing and it simply cannot long endure if some of the people are getting special treatment, even if that special treatment is allegedly for a good cause (it never is, by the way – people doing genuine good never so much as ask for special treatment). It is a good day in America when a serious contender for the White House brings up the need to curb public sector unions – it will be a splended day in America when someone adds to that the need to curb Big Corporation.


16 thoughts on “Scott Walker Does Half of What is Necessary

  1. Amazona September 16, 2015 / 10:26 pm

    Not about Walker, but about the debate that is still going on. The response has been, overall, really encouraging in that nearly every single candidate has come across as strong, competent, and pretty knowledgeable. Trump has had several chances but falls apart and becomes incoherent.

    In particular, on the subject of anchor babies, he babbled. I am not a Trump fan but I was still encouraging him to make sense. He kept referring to the 14th Amendment, but he could never settle in to the real point, which is that it stated that citizenship would be conveyed to anyone born in this country to someone under the jurisdiction of this country. A citizen of another country is under the legal jurisdiction of that country.

    The purpose of the amendment was to make sure that slaves and former slaves and children of slaves would be recognized as citizens, and slaves were under the jurisdiction of the United States. One would think that Trump would have done enough research on the 14th Amendment to be able to enunciate at least one coherent sentence about it. His skittering around the edges of the argument, referencing the 14th Amendment but completely unable to make sense of his references, and his falling back on saying that no other country does what we do, just supports my concern that he is a superficial guy, who skims the surface of a topic enough to FEEL something about it, but is too lazy to do the heavy lifting of knowing what the hell he is talking about.

    I get it, that he FEELS strongly about things, and that in response a lot of people FEEL good about him, but as I am still reeling from the effects of a nation led by FEELINGS I am pretty tired of it and really want some thinking involved.

    Maybe that is just me……..

    • M. Noonan September 16, 2015 / 11:08 pm

      Didn’t watch the debate but a lot of people seem to feel that Trump did badly – so did Walker. From what I’m hearing, Rubio and Fiorina had the best night.

    • Cluster September 17, 2015 / 7:15 am

      Trump was schooled last night and his lack of depth on substance was exposed. I thought Carly and Marco hit it out of the park. I think Walker, Christie, Cruz and Paul had a better debate than their last performance, Kasich and Huckabee held their own, Carson and Trump will slip a bit, and Bush solidified himself as the establishment candidate. I think a Fiorina/Rubio ticket would not only win, but win big and both of them would be very good for this country.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 17, 2015 / 7:28 pm


      I hope you are not among the advocates of Congressional action to disallow “anchor babies” because that’s not what the 14th amendment meant.

      Realistically, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish that simply because it has been interpreted and accepted as such.

      To hope for a dicta from Boehner that will reverse decades of accepted definition is Quixotic.

      On Rocinante, for the glory of Dulcinea!

      • Amazona September 17, 2015 / 11:06 pm

        Count, I understand that there is a serious and compelling argument about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

        The argument is that any person is “,,,subject to the jurisdiction…” of the country of the person’s citizenship—that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to insure citizenship of slaves and descendants of slaves, who through no fault of their own came under the jurisdiction of the United States. It is that if a person is a citizen of another country, that is the nation of jurisdiction for that person, and therefore a citizen of another country cannot be under the jurisdiction of the United States without renouncing the citizenship of his or her native nation and becoming a citizen of the United States.

        I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I do see the merit in this argument, as it is supported by the fact that no other nation on earth conveys citizenship based on nothing but the location of birth, and even the Founders did not do this, relying on the contemporaneous understanding of Natural Born Citizen which conveys citizenship by birth to citizen parent(s) and Naturalized Citizen through a legal process.

        As for the much-vaunted “interpretation and/or acceptance” theory that might be used to validate incorrect rulings I am pretty fed up with bad rulings that then become the basis for more bad rulings. I have seen, for example, several SCOTUS rulings in which “Natural Born Citizen” and “Native Born Citizen” are used interchangeably, when as far as I know the tern “Native Born Citizen” did not even become possible until the 14th Amendment.

        I also don’t give a flip what Boehner says or doesn’t say, and can’t imagine why anyone would think I do.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 18, 2015 / 5:07 pm


        Believe me, I understand the argument. It has been proffered (by a Supreme) that were Congress simply issue a *clarification regarding the 14th Amendment (subject to the jurisdiction thereof), then the Anchor Baby issue will be resolved.

        Sadly, although this may be legally accurate, but such a statement from the House would only result in lawsuits from injured individuals seeking a cascading judicial decision free-for-all finally ending in the Supreme Court.

        And which way do you think they’ll “rule”?

        Now, once codified by a SCOTUS decision, the Amendment process becomes impossible (bad press and all) and Anchor Baby becomes irreversible.

        My reference to Boehner is regarding the *clarification statement that would need to be issued — presumably by the Speaker.

  2. Retired Spook September 17, 2015 / 8:07 am

    I’m not a Christie fan, but one of the defining moments of the debate, IMO, was during the introductions when Christie asked the cameraman to point the camera at the audience and then asked anyone in the audience who thought their children were going to have a better life than they had to hold up their hand. No one did. That’s historic and describes in one sound bite just how much damage Obama and Progressivism has done to this country.

    I just about got up and walked away about 10 or 15 minutes into the debate when it looked like it was going to be a food fight between Trump and 3 or 4 other candidates, but it settled down, and eventually turned out pretty well. Trump was typical Trump, and I doubt he picked up any new support, maybe even lost some ground. I agree that Fiorina and Rubio both had a good night; was a little disappointed in Cruz, not so much in what he said as in that he came off stiff and too scripted, but to me the biggest take away from the night is that the GOP has a wealth of good candidates and good ideas. What a stark contrast from the Donkeys.

    • Cluster September 17, 2015 / 9:33 am

      I agree that Fiorina’s and Rubio’s understanding of current global threats were far superior to everyone else on the stage, and I loved Fiorina’s response to PP. Unless something unforeseen happens, Fiorina and Rubio are my candidates. Both of them offer an optimistic view of the future, have common sense conservative plans, are reform minded and firmly understand American exceptionalism.

  3. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 17, 2015 / 7:09 pm

    Happy Constitution Day everyone.

    Walker has shown the way to defeat liberals, statists and union goons. He would be outstanding as cheif executive, but I fear his calm, determined “style” will be his undoing.
    At a time when we need Coolidge; a steady hand at the helm, we get carnival barkers and assorted other amateurs from the Republicans and socialists and criminals from the dimocrats. .

    Panem et circenses!

    • Retired Spook September 17, 2015 / 9:09 pm

      Count, good to see you again. Couldn’t agree more about needing a Coolidge.

    • Amazona September 17, 2015 / 11:30 pm

      I thought it interesting that the negatives about Cruz last night were that he didn’t come up with anything new. Well, asked the same old questions the same answers seem like a positive—-it takes a Trump to have a new position from day to day.

      I like the steadiness of Cruz. He seems well grounded and confident, and is consistent. I also like Walker, and share the concern that he might not have enough spark to appeal to the Identity Politics junkies who like Trump “because he fights”.

      I have said for a long time that I favored a Walker candidacy, mostly because of a Natural Born Citizen concern about Cruz, but further study nudged me into an agreement that being born to a citizen PARENT is good, it does not have to be a citizen FATHER, and by that definition Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen, whose mother was a citizen and whose father was a resident. With that personal barrier removed, Cruz shot to the top of my favorites list. I like his analytical approach to starting his presidency, immediately removing the worst of the Obama incursions into Constitutional governance. For a long time the conventional wisdom was that Cruz was just “too extreme” but after Trump no one seems extreme. I’m starting to see the possibility of a Cruz/Fiorina ticket, because she is the real deal, as far as I can see, but not enough to dislodge Cruz from my top ranking. Rubio came across really well, but he has done so in the past and then shilly-shallied, especially on immigration. He’s glib, but I have some doubts about his consistency.

      I think the others are rapidly becoming also-rans. Kasich, who impressed me the first time around, came across last night as (1) tiresome (“architect of balanced budget, blah blah blah”) and (2) spineless (“we have to all get along….”). Huckabee is OK but just not presidential. Carson is a very nice man but not president material. Jeb? Snooze. Christie tried to come across as a leader when he tried to get the debate on the track he wanted, sniping about Trump and Fiorina trading work histories, and I think she put him in his place with a lot of class. His whole schtick seemed to be to loudly inform everyone they were doing something wrong.

      I was very disappointed in the moderators’ questions—-they were as locked into Identity Politics as any Lefty. There were the personality questions, the gotcha questions, the “what do you think about what Trump said?” questions, and not as much meat and potatoes as I would have liked.

      I’d like someone to suggest an immediate moratorium on capital gains tax for two or three years, followed by a 10% cap, and a low tax rate for overseas money coming back into the country, to give the economy a real jolt with real money.

      • Cluster September 18, 2015 / 7:50 am

        I agree with your assessment of all the candidates and Cruz, Fiorina and Rubio are my top three as well. I will place Fiorina and Rubio slightly ahead of Cruz only because of the “winnability” factor. We will need a certain amount of LIV votes to win the general and I think Cruz’s constitutional intellect would soar right over their pointed heads.

      • Amazona September 18, 2015 / 10:09 am

        I know what you mean, but then look where we have gotten by nominating people based on our guesses about their “winnability” factor.

        A lot will depend on who the Dems nominate, but given the choices we have seen so far I think Cruz can have more appeal than any of them. Get him out of the pack where he is not surrounded by people clamoring for media attention and pandering to gotcha questions, where he is head-to-head with Hillary or Biden or, if we are lucky, Sanders, and he will shine.

        Trump has paved the way with his strident attacks on various agendas, policies and issues, and gotten a strong positive response. Cruz has taken the same positions but Trump has led the charge, out front where the cameras are, and gotten all the attention for those positions. Get Trump out of the way and also supporting Cruz, which is what I hope will happen, and he will have an immediate advantage.

        We have to look at several factors. We tend to assume that Dem turnout will be the same as it has been the last two elections, but I just don’t see that happening. Obama got the black vote and the youth vote, because he is a demagogue and had strong appeal with black voters and kids who are suckers for the American Idol approach to voting. None of the three Dem front runners have much appeal in those categories, and I just don’t see them generating a big voter turnout in either one. They are Establishment, Status Quo, continuations of Obama for the most part. They can’t come out against him, and he has been such a failure I think that without being Anti-Obama Dems they will be weighed down by his legacy. The Dem message to young people is “you think you have no future now? Wait till we get another few years in charge and you can count on being part of the Dependent Class for the rest of your lives.”

        Cruz is a voice of change—not a platitude, but real change. As appealing as Rubio is, he has been addressing issues but not the underlying problem of how they came to be and how to change the structure that allowed them. Cruz’s message is that we need to scrape off the accumulated layers of constantly increasing incursions into personal liberty before we can even start to address the various issues that have resulted—get rid of Obamacare, get rid of the IRS, get rid of the Executive Orders. Clean house. I think that will resonate. And if the Dems can’t generate enough enthusiasm in those two key demographics to come pretty close to what Obama got, they will stay home.

        Obama won by about 5%. If the Dems get exactly the same turnout of blacks and youth, we still only need to take away 3% of Obama voters to win. So far the Dems have two old white men and one old white woman who has lost ground rapidly even among Dem women and is facing even more legal problems that won’t influence the hard core but will affect the squishies, and a couple of who???? people on the fringes. Say we have a Cruz/Fiorina ticket—two younger, dynamic, new faces, a Latino and an accomplished woman who doesn’t sound like a screeching harridan when she is forceful, and I think it would be a good contrast. I think Rubio would be a bigger contrast, but again, his message seems to be how to patch the stains in the ceiling while Cruz’s is to replace the roof.

    • Amazona September 17, 2015 / 11:35 pm

      Count, are you and Bonnie still a happy twosome? It finally quit raining and then got below high 90s, so Ruby and I have been getting out and I am really enjoying her. Fall in the Rockies is a great time to have a convertible.

      Question: When the gas gauge is at a quarter tank or less, if I turn sharply the engine cuts out—clearly fuel starvation. Then the other day the tank was over half full but I hit a stretch of highway at about 65 that had some dips in it, and I had some sporadic cutouts till I slowed down. Have you ever had that happen to you? (Either one, though I think they are the same thing.)

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 18, 2015 / 5:13 pm

        Amazona, I’ve been out of the country for the past month, looking forward to a Bonnie ride tomorrow. The last time i took her out was in July when we went to Cambria for the weekend.

        No, I haven’t experienced the fuel issue. I’d look to the fuel filter first.

Comments are closed.