Days of Change

Day 1307 – The Labor Party | June 3, 2012

Grover Norquist, of American for Tax Reform, once said

I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

Contrary to Kool-Aid drinker belief, he did not conclude with “then we’ll drown it in the bathtub.” He could have said that he wanted the size of government to be manageable, but some people out there think that means spending 50% of GDP on programs and running a national debt 200% of GDP.

The size of government (in dollars) will increase without intervention by those who want fiscal responsibility. Not only are real dollar costs increasing, but the percentage of GDP spent on government is also increasing. Worse yet, the revenue as a percentage of GDP is the same and even starting to get smaller.

Where does it start? I suppose it started when the government first decided to put items in the federal budget that weren’t part of the essential operation of government. Then there were federal projects that covered multiple states, like railroads, that could only be administered by the nation at large. The real trouble started when politicians figured out how to steer federal revenue into federal projects that impacted one state or locality. Invent pork, and the voters will beat a path to keep you in office.

Today, every election has a national component with local impact. One of the biggest contributors to politics is the collection of labor unions, both public and private. They funnel money to Democrats. Democrats vote for more government spending and more labor rules. Unions get more members and more money to spend on Democrats.

Labor is an ideal constituency because their existence is continued by Democrats, accepted by Republicans and yields both money and votes. Just ask Harry Reid, whose statistically unlikely win was due to, among other things, a union GOTV effort. The plan would be perfect except that union salary and benefits are wildly outpacing that of the tax paying base of non-union employees. There’s a fix, though. Eliminate health insurance as a company benefit by making it Obamacare.

Almost every socialized democracy (especially the failing ones) has a Labor Party. Big Labor is the Democratic Party’s equivalent of the Tea Party. Economic and even social conservatives are being excised from the party. If you want to know why Barack Obama got the nod from the leaders of the party, look no further than Labor. He’s a slick politician who knows how to play ball. Obama “bailed out” GM by expelling non-union dealership owners and keeping all the unionized assembly line workers. He’s even a former (community) organizer.

2012 is already marked by more strong-arm, Chicago-style union hardball. Wisconsin was the preview, but people didn’t like that particular coming attraction. I see the newest tactic, though. The Tea Party Republicans’ biggest gains were in state legislature and non-federal positions. They won small to win big. Big Labor is using the opposite strategy, using overwhelming force to take out low-hanging fruit. This may ending up being a race to see who’s the first to run out of money. Unfortunately, in the case of unions, it’s the taxpayers’ money.


Posted in Uncategorized


  1. The union leadership’s main goals are self-perpetuation and powe, not the good of the workers.Too bad the workers, pathetically loyal to the union bosses, don’t get it.

    Comment by Mary — June 4, 2012 @ 12:16 am

  2. 15,

    This post has grear impact.

    Comment by Mary — June 4, 2012 @ 12:17 am

  3. Like a typical gullible lefty, I used to think that Norquist quote was the epitome of eviiiil.
    It too me only one year of an Obama admin to decide that he had the right idea all along.

    Comment by votermom — June 4, 2012 @ 7:50 am

  4. There’s a saying I read a lot lately. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

    Comment by 1539days — June 4, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

%d bloggers like this: