The lame duck Congress will try to ram through another massive taxpayer handout to unions at the expense of the average worker in the private sector.

We have heard enough about how we are all on the hook for the unfunded pension liability of public service employee unions – thought to be as high as $400 billion for California and over $3 trillion when added up for all Federal, State and Local employees.  No matter what reasons are given by unions leaders, these pensions never had a chance of being fully funded, recession or not.  There was chronically, too little pension deduction from employee pay and too little contribution from the annual budgets of the departments they worked for.  Solvency projections were based on unattainable rates of return and economic growth fed to union members and taxpayers alike by union fund managers who knew that future taxpayers would have to make up the differences.

Now comes a similar story about the pension funds of approximately seven million workers in non-public unions like the UAW and the AFL-CIO.  Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Dick Durbin (D-ILL) have sponsored legislation, duplicitously named the Create Jobs and Save Benefits Bill , that would provide an estimated $165 billion to fully restore these private underfunded pensions.  You don’t have to look far for the motivation of these two bought-and-paid-for union shills in the Senate. According to opensecrets.org , Dick Durbin has received over a million dollars from a combination of public sector unions and these private sector unions that he seeks to bail out.  Even by their normally profligate standards, unions went for broke in 2008, spending $400 million electing Democrats.  This is all part of the payback leaving those of us not in on the scam to wonder:  where can I make such an investment and Why isn’t this Fraud? 

According to the bill, the responsibility to save these pensions would fall to the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) .  The $165 billion price tag however would have to be funded by this bill since the PBGC is already running an annual $20 billion shortfall.  PBGC is just another variation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A government agency is created and funded to advance the Democrats political objectives followed by the creation of moral hazard in the market place (so what if buyers are unqualified or pensions are underfunded - other taxpayers will take care of things).

And so it goes. We in the private sector will now have to work harder (those of us who don’t lose our jobs as a result) to pay for these bailouts so that union workers are not inconvenienced by a nominal decrease in their lifetime pensions.  Plus, we have to suffer the insulting pitches from politicians like Durbin, Casey and also Earl Pomeroy (D ND) who is sponsoring similar legislation in the House trying to convince us that this will create jobs.  Such a self-serving and idiotic notion almost doesn’t deserve a rebuttal.  But even if you could point to a single job being “saved or created”  by this bill, it rarely occurs to politicians (and never to Democrats) that the foregone activity resulting from this additional taxation, borrowing and government spending would have created jobs in the private sector either by direct private investment or by increased competitiveness.  So for the rest of us, it is more of the same – we pay more taxes, pay more for goods and services and watch our job and life opportunities diminish.  When will we have had enough?

UCAPS.ORG  Editorial Staff

But the big losers in the 2010 elections were private sector workers who enthusiastically followed their lead. 

You have to hand it to the Public Service Unions in California.  They got everyone and everything they wanted in the 2010 elections except perhaps for Prop. 19 (legalizing marijuana) which might have been a dilemma for some of them.  Had it passed, they would possibly lose some law enforcement employment but on the other hand the state would have gained a lot of revenue with which to grow government and pay the unions even more lavish salaries and benefits.  They have to be feeling pretty good about themselves and their collective political might on this fine California morning (Sunny, 78 degrees and the ocean sparkling in the distance from where I sit).
 
Like Monday morning quarterbacks discussing a lopsided Superbowl, we can all shake our heads in amazement at how thoroughly and utterly the Public Service Unions dominate politics in California. They fight for every little thing with a disdain for the other team and in this case, with utter disregard for the welfare of their tax paying brethren in the private sector.  But here is where it gets a little puzzling; a high percentage of their victims  help them to pull this off by voting with them.  Since Public Service employees total only around 2.5 million out of 17 million registered voters, there is no other way to explain the election results we just witnessed.  Let’s look at some of their most significant wins:

Jerry Brown as governor can be counted on to perpetuate public service union dominance of state politics - he practically invented the concept in the first place and believes beyond all reasonable evidence that government has the answer to everything.

Ms. Boxer, that’s “Senator Boxer” to you sir, is an easily bought, unabashed supporter of all things that grow government and advance the Progressive agenda.  As is the custom in their unholy alliance with Progressives, the Public Service unions know they will get her voice and vote for everything they want and at least "a taste” (with apologies to the Sopranos) of everything else she supports.

Other statewide races for Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner were all won by candidates heavily supported by Public Service Unions.  They even got a dead person elected apparently.  Democrat Jenny Oropeza who passed away on October 20th was leading Republican challenger John Stammreich, 58.4 percent to 35.7 percent, in Senate District 28 deep into the vote count.  There is some evidence that the Democratic Party and the sitting Secretary of State conspired to keep voters from knowing of her actual unavailability for office so that the seat could be filled later by a Democrat in a special election rather than falling by default to the Republican or Libertarian candidate.  They needn’t have worried with automatic Democrat-voting union members on the job.
 
Proposition 23 was soundly defeated based on a union supported disinformation campaign that convinced 61% of Californians that it was backed by two evil oil companies conspiring to pollute the state and induce asthma in our children. All it proposed was that we suspend the boneheaded and arrogantly named Global Warming Solutions Act passed in 2006 until runaway unemployment in the private sector abated.  Instead, as numerous independent studies predict, it will scrub away a million or more California jobs by forcing all employers to spend billions in fees, penalties and equipment upgrades to dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions in vain pursuit of a questionable and tiny impact on future temperatures elsewhere in the world.    Proponents claim also that this money will launch California into prominence in the “green” industry – as if government has the knowledge, skills or the requirement to even understand what this means, let alone execute such a questionable scheme effectively.  Just ask Spain who blames much of their current abysmal economic state of affairs on their self inflicted and misguided “green” programs over the last decade.  However, for the California Public Unions, Prop 23 rejection means tens of thousands of new members and plenty of money rolling into the coffers that will be redirected if needed from the quixotic “green” programs into union pensions and salaries.

Proposition 25 was passed when the state needed badly for it to fail. We have watched Sacramento squabble and dither horribly over budgets because it takes a 2/3rds majority to pass and so far, the Democrats have not achieved this level of majority with which to rubber stamp everything that they want.  Well now it takes only 50% and clearly the skids are greased for adoption of every program and every increase in government and every pension bailout that the unions want.  Yes it still takes a 2/3rds majority to raise taxes and property taxes are capped by the stalwart (so far) Prop 13 from a bygone era.  But you can see what will happen.  An irresponsible and ideologically driven budget will be passed and the state will begin spending based upon it.  Then when reality intrudes and they run out of money, they will brow beat the minority into going along with tax increases and try to place blame for the mess on (pick one or more) Republicans, big business, big oil, tea partiers or the rich. Oh, and these tax increases will certainly be necessary to “save the parks and the children” as all other monies will have gone to public union salaries, benefits and pensions.

Based on tea party movements in other states and on the crushing unemployment here that could be as high as 20%, many people in the California private sector are awakening to the fundamental problem behind it all – the power of Public Service Unions in politics.   But is it even possible to change things now?  Have we reached some tipping point where every election outcome is predetermined?
   
The following table represents only rough estimates in categorizations of my own creation.  However, it is one way to try to understand the various voting factions in California.  It suggests that proponents of limited government and private sector freedom still have a chance to influence the future course of political events – even in a state with 12% unemployment where 61% vote to  kill more jobs.

Every Public Service Union in the State is spending big money to ensure that Prop. 23 fails.  That ought to by itself send everyone who works in the private sector to the poles along with a car full of neighbors and co-workers to vote "Yes on 23". The money is being spent to run a series of highly deceptive ads that if used to market a product would generate huge lawsuits for violation of truth in advertising laws.

First they claim that we will be setting the clock back with respect to pollution.  This is not even a little bit about pollution.  The arrogantly and naively named Global Warming Solutions Act from 2006 (legislative shorthand name of AB32)  that Prop 23 seeks to suspend until California's 12 -20% unemployment comes back to an acceptable level, is only about Carbon Dioxide also known as CO2. 

CO2 makes up less than .04 % ( four one hundredths of one percent) of the atmosphere and it is continuously created and absorbed by all living things and our oceans.  Only about 4% of the total created each year comes from man's activities other than breathing.  Almost all of the CO2 created is absorbed by trees and plants or back into the ocean and this has remained in reasonable balance for milennia including during the periods of the industrial revolution.  In spite of these marginal percentages and the sloppy and biased "science" by global warming proponents, AB32 will give unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats at the Air Resources Board the authority to impose massive job-scrubbing regulations and costs on all manner of Califoria's businesses.  It is necessary they claim,  because increases in freely circulating CO2 may drive up global temperatures by some small amount in future years. Forget for a moment that the problem is largely a fabricated one.  Even if true, the impact that California alone could have on the globe is decidedly not measurable. This is a very shakey foundation on which to restructure California's economy, currently staggered by deep recession. 

Secondly they claim that "Big Oil" is behind Prop 23 due to some fuzzy notion that they don't want the competition that will eventually come from the "green industry" that will be funded by AB32 taxes and regulation fees. While some large oil companies have donated in support Prop 23, we in the private sector should thank them for helping us to save the 1-2 million jobs that multiple studies have shown will be chased from California if we don't get this awfully stupid Act suspended.  If the energy industry is to transition to alternative fuels and generation methods, it won't be by coercive force of government.  Let's face it, they do not have the knowledge, discipline or the requirement to make reasonable decisions about the energy industry and our role in it.  Everything will be ideological and political and we will be handing them even more billions with which to become even more inefficient and bloated and to just in general make a mess of things.  But what a nice way to create more public service union members who will be sure to demand higher and higher salaries, huge pensions and lax work rules. 

As for the "green economy", there is no logic and no professional cost-benefit analysis that indicates when or even if this might offset even a fraction of the jobs that will be lost.  If executives in private industry acted so boldly with such poor planning, lack of intelligence and recklessness, they would be laughed out of the company.  They know they would be risking their jobs and careers and those of their co-employees. Our politicians and the public service unions have it nicely rigged so that they risk only our jobs and opportunities while enhancing their own at taxpayer expense. 

by  Michael Robert Gonzalez , UCAPS Managing Director

According to Fox News, three of the largest Public Service Unions have donated over $170 million 100% to Democratic candidates for the 2010 election cycle. This included $87.5 million from the Association of Federal, State and Municipal Employees (AFSME), $44 million from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and $40 million from the National Education Association (NEA). The Democrats have in return legislated and approved lavish pay, gold-plated benefits and lax work rules for the unions' millions of member employees. They have recieved such generous guaranteed pensions, the value of which puts every long term government employee firmly in the category of "the rich", that the country has been saddled with unfunded liablities estimated at over $3 trillion dollars. This burden will reverberate for years and result in a much lower standard of living for all of us, our children and grandchildren. 

Meanwhile, democrats and unions attack the private sector that pays nearly 100% of these cost for not paying "their fair share".  They have enthusiastically hammered the US Chamber of Commerce for donating $75 million primarily to Republican and Independent candidates.   But there is a big difference; the Chamber of Commerce and private setor businesses and employees are not looking for special treatment.  They just want to be treated fairly and left alone to prosper in a relatively free market.  The Public Service Unions on the other hand are in greedy pursuit of other people's money with the government as their partner in crime.  

We have come to have such government overreach and the brewing pension tsunami primarily due to this long and unethical relationship between the public service unions and democrats. According to OpenSecrets.org, 12 of the top 20 political donors, cumulative since 1988, have been unions (public service or single industry) and the tilt of their donations has been over 95% toward the Democrats.  Public services employees as a result have attained salaries that are 60% higher than their equivalents in the private sector with gold-plated benefits and multi-Trillion dollar pensions.  The UAW gives millions, 100% to Democrats, and end up owning a high percentage of the once failed General Motors at the taxpayers’ expense and courtesy of the Obama administration. Such a direct and cozy relationship between any special interest group and the stewards of public money has to be seen as incredibly unfair and unethical. In fact, if all of this is not prima facie and patently fraudulent, then we need a new definition of the word 'fraud'. 

We should demand that public service employee pay and benefits be determined by the free hand of a free market, that is by whatever we need to offer to attract the right people to do only the essential government jobs. Let's face it, public service unions should not even be allowed to exist given this seemingly unavoidable conflict of interest - especially the aggressive, selfish and politically active versions that we see today.  We have allowed a system to exist where unions select and control the very people who decide on their pay and benefits and work rules.  And where those "deciders" also get to enjoy the same benefits that they confer on the unions.  What could go wrong there? 

Instead UCAPS supports and votes for candidates who will act responsibly and fairly and allow the private sector the freedom to grow and prosper.  We ask for no favoritism from our governments. We expect that none be given to other groups at our expense.

By Michael R. Gonzalez