Labor union activity paid by taxpayers

The video below speaks to a real issue here in Main Street USA.

Labor unions existing in the public sector.

Why these were ever allowed to come into being when one is using taxpayer money to fund wages is beyond, I believe, anything our Founding Fathers would have wanted.

The below is a direct quote from the YouCut website:

"Currently, some federal employees spend up to 100% of their workweek, paid by taxpayers, doing work for their union. Federal employees unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying, should they also be subsidized by the taxpayer for their official functions? In 2008 the Federal government spent $120 million paying employees for their time spent working on union activities (over five years this would total a minimum of $600 million.)"

This observation does beg the question: how is this allowed?

If it is known about, it should simply be stopped. Period.

Labor union activities are not listed in their job function. Thus, the simple way to deal with the problem is to make these federal employees cease the activity.

It is hoped that citizens of America have become so outraged at how their money is spent year after year, and how Capitol Hill can allow such (known-about) waste as the above, that votes are cast this November to elect only those fiscally responsible candidates--regardless of their party affiliation.

And to elect candidates who are not afraid to stop any form of corruption.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Supreme Court Decision: Good or Bad?

Since hearing about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn a 63-year old law and allow big (and small) businesses and labor unions, basically, unlimited use of their money to fund political advertising I am still undecided about the impact that this will have on politics in Washington.

On the one hand it does seem that having laws in place that do not allow such to happen is a violation of free (well, paid) speech.

However, I am not convinced that having the law in place actually stopped any special interest money from finding influence in our political process.

There, I am at disagreement with President Obama. 

As reported by the Associated Press, President Obama states, "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don't."

Will that really be the case?

Let's face it, if businesses or labor unions really want to contribute to something or buy something, they find a way to do it (generally through very well-paid attorneys).

I do not think that Main Street USA is blind to the fact that people and corporations and labor unions set up dummy companies and organizations (i.e., Citizens For ... or Citizens Against ...) to get their message across.

I do think it would be prudent that with the High Court's decision there should be in place some form of legislation that enforces disclosure of exactly who is running the ads that will undoubtedly be run.

As well, perhaps companies and unions should not be allowed any form of tax deduction for political campaign expense.

And, let's face it, politicians will be attempting to gather every bit of political capital from the very businesses and labor unions this ruling will affect. Anyone who thinks differently is simply naive.

So, is it really going to be so different?

Or, will be be, perhaps, more transparent?

Food for thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One