Matters Of Opinion

Union Stands Ground…On Republican Donations?

Ok. So first, I want to say that I have been reviewing the educational reforms proposed by Governor Daniels, and the bills that have been put forth, and will very soon give my official critique of those reforms. Some I like, some I’m not crazy about, but I’ll get into specifics on my next piece.

This piece doesn’t concern those reforms, after all. This piece has to do with the article that the Times ran a couple of days ago regarding Local 150 and it’s contributions to Republican causes. Excerpts taken from the aforementioned Times piece:

“Local No. 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, with local offices in Merrillville, last year gave a $5,000 contribution to the Aiming Higher Political Action Committee, according to campaign finance records at the Indiana secretary of state’s website.

Aiming Higher, established by Gov. Mitch Daniels, spent $1.5 million on television ads in the last election to retake the Indiana House for Republicans, which laid the groundwork for this week’s effort to try to pass right-to-work legislation.

In addition, Local 150 donated $50,000 to the Mitch for Governor Campaign in the 2008 election cycle, according to campaign finance records. The Indiana Council of Carpenters poured $20,000 into Daniels’ campaign.”

There are a couple of different aspects that I would like to address. The first, and primary, aspect, is that fans of Mitch go far beyond typical party lines. Yes, a lot of Republicans are fans of Mitch, and yes, he is a “blade” when it comes to slashing budgets (which moderate, libertarian, and far right Republicans can all appreciate), but he is also favored by many a different kind of voter. Many unions (including, apparently, 150) and union members like Mitch because he has helped to stem the tide when it comes to jobs disappearing in this state. I remember the last election, reading a Post-Tribune article, where several black Gary voters were announcing their support for Mitch. These all go outside the bounds of the stereotypical Republican voter, and helps to show why Mitch, as a Presidential candidate, would have a good chance of winning.

The second aspect is that, though I am personally for Indiana becoming a “right to work” state (as previously written), Mitch has been on record saying that he doesn’t want that bill passed right now because, quite simply, it wasn’t a campaign promise. This is important because at least SOME unions are able to recognize that the agendas of Governor Daniels and those that are in the House or Senate are not always parallel. Which means that, though some of the union big shots will certainly paint Mitch as an orchestrator of all of this, there are some that won’t take the bait, and that is good, because it increases the odds if Daniels decides to run.

The fact that Democrats, instead of standing their ground and just voting no in opposition to different legislation, are instead deciding to run to Illinois is an important factor as well. I had honestly thought that this scenario would play out:

Because many people were, at the beginning of this whole conundrum, were on the sides of teachers and union members, I thought that R’s would lose some seats. A handful, but enough to cause some calamity in future races. Because they decided, rather, to cut and run to a Democratic state that is consistently raising taxes and just allowed Rahm Emanual to win as mayor of Chicago, moderates and Independents have been changing their minds. On a recent poll I have seen, only 39% of those polled are in agreement with teachers unions, with 46% against. As written at the start of this post, I’ll be writing soon about my own thoughts regarding education reforms, but regardless, this is a bad sign for Democrats.

Because they are overplaying their hand, and consistently adding to their demands (ranging from the killing of right to work legislation, which has been met already, to the killing of illegal immigration reform much like Arizona’s), more and more people are seeing this tactic for what it really is: the hostage taking of our government by the minority.

The longer the Democrats hide out, the better it will turn out for Republicans, I think, and particularly Daniels if he makes a 2012 run. People don’t have a problem with protesting, and they don’t have a problem with differing opinions (I know I don’t), but when it gets to this point people get fed up REAL quick.

“Right To Work” Legislation Ruffles Feathers

It isn’t surprising that Indiana and Wisconsin are trying to pass “right to work” legislation; the benefits are immense and undermine the union leaders (not so much the union workers, but I’ll get to that later).

What is right to work? At it’s very core, it basically allows for a person to work at a place without being forced to join the union, which is standard practice at many mills, including my own place of work. There are other aspects, which will be covered, but that is the meat and potatoes of the legislation.

I, for one, am all for Indiana becoming a right to work state. No, I’m not “anti-union”, as I’ve covered on at least a dozen other posts, but I am skeptical of anybody who tells me that they have my best interests at mind, and yes, this includes the union. The biggest reason that the union bosses (my own unions VP had his picture in the newspaper, hooping and hollering along with the rest of the union members there, making me oh so proud) are against this legislation is simple; it’s all about the almighty dollar. Less people deciding to join the union makes for less union dues which, in turn, makes for less dollars for those in charge. Those in charge would love to tell you all day that this would bankrupt the union and that those dollars are needed for everyday funding, but my response would be that maybe they could save some money by not flying down to Mexico to try to unionize people that aren’t even American citizens, let alone union members who live and work in Northwest Indiana. Just saying.

The statistics on job growth and income ratio’s for right to work states tell it all.

» Twenty-two states and Guam are currently governed by Right to Work statutes.

» If Indiana had adopted Right to Work in 1977, per-capita income would have been $2,925 higher — or $11,700 higher for a family of four — by 2008. (1)

» Projecting the same growth rate in the next 10 years after adjusting for inflation, passage of a Right to Work law in 2011 would raise per capita income by $968, or $3,872 for a family of four, by 2021. (1)

» The primary goal of any Right to Work law is to safeguard employee rights by ensuring that no worker is forced to join or pay tribute to a union against his or her will. But it’s nice to know that Right to Work states also enjoy faster growth and higher real purchasing power than their forced unionism counterparts.

Here’s an excerpt from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research’s latest fact sheet on the issue:
Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1999-2009)

§ Right to Work States: 28.3 percent

§ Forced-Unionism States: 14.7 percent

§ National Average: 19.5 percent

Cost of Living-Adjusted Per Capita Disposable Personal Income (2009)

§ Right to Work States: $35,543

§ Forced-Unionism States: $33,389

§ National Average: $34,256 (2)

» As of 2008, according to economists Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson, 8.4 percent of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation. But in 15 states — Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin — 10.0 percent or more of private-sector workers were unionized.

» In 2008, cost of living-adjusted average weekly earnings in the states with 10.0 percent or more of private-sector employees subject to union monopoly bargaining were $770. That’s $48 less than the average in the states with private-sector unionization of 5.0 percent or less. (These low-union density states are: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia.)

That comes to a roughly $2500-a-year disadvantage for full-time workers in states with high monopoly-bargaining density.

» Aggregate cost of living-adjusted weekly earnings for states with private-sector union density of 5.1 percent to 9.9 percent were $783, or, for full-time workers, nearly $700 a year more than in the highest-union-density states, but more than $1,800 a year less than in the lowest-union-density states. (3)

(1) Dr. Richard Vedder, Ohio University, Feb. 1, 2011
(2) Will Collins, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Nov. 15, 2010
(3) NILRR, Aug. 28, 2009

Of course, this doesn’t matter much to those that have a vested interest in keeping states like Wisconsin (where the yellow belly’s that call themselves elected officials have decided to cut and run to avoid moving forward; you know, it’s times like these I think of the bull crap that Republicans had to endure with the ramming of health care legislation down our throats from DC and I remind myself of the dignity and respect that we had, for the most part, compared to those that would just up and run like weasels) and Indiana away from the successful right to work formula and retained in the union boss’s grips.

I actually first heard about the formation of these recent rallies about a month ago. I was able to get my hands on the talking points list handed out to those that are attending, and I read it in disbelief. Let’s start by outlining how this paper is worded. The very first sentence tells it all: Dangerous, anti-middle class legislation is at our doorstep. Really?! Another excerpt, from the center of the pamphlet: Who are “they”? The right wing, the rich, the powerful, the same companies and people who have tried to take our jobs overseas and turn us into a service-sector economy (sorry, had to jump in here to mention that Clinton DID sign NAFTA, and the biggest reason we are turning INTO a service-sector economy is for two reasons. One, that companies are being waged out of business by rising legacy costs and retirement/wage deals struck, and two, more and more kids are going to college, and those that aren’t don’t have the balls to work in a mill, they’d rather work at McDonald’s) where a few get very rich and everyone else is left to fight for the scraps. This is, of course, rhetoric meant to rile up the base (which, by reading through, they apparently think their base is stupid).

The pamphlet continues on to note the “myths” and “facts” of right to work legislation. I’d write it all out word for word, but it would take forever, so I’ll paraphrase much of it. The pamphlet refutes the claim that workers can be forced to join the union, noting that one can become a “Beck Objector”. By becoming a “Beck Objector”, you choose not to become a member of the union, meaning you have no membership right what so ever. Ok, I thought, let’s take a look at how this would work. The pamphlet seems to make a valid point. However, this is where right to work would still become necessary. After review, I found some instances of people that had tried that method, and ended up getting the screw. Almost all places of business have at least a thirty day review process where the union decides whether or not they are to be admitted. It’s actually pretty simple; they vote no, the company fires them. Sure, the company doesn’t HAVE to fire them, but it keeps a balance and keeps work flow from slowing down (which, if we’re talking about loop holes here, is a sure fire way for the unions to get what they want. While it’s technically against contract to do so, it’s hard to actually PROVE that a slow down in work is happening).

The pamphlet continues, claiming the most backwards economics I’ve ever read in my life. Supposedly, and I quote, a right to work law will “create a climate in which businesses will increase profits because of lower wages (which is wrong, right to work does not lower wages, in fact it creates more opportunity for good workers to have increased wages, but I digress) but that’s not good for the state or it’s workers. When wages fall, state revenues from income tax and sales tax fall as well.” Yeah, ok, so let’s ignore the fact that right to work states don’t lower wages, but actually increase them, as noted earlier in this article. Also, let’s ignore the fact that increase profits in businesses is never bad, because it means increases in job growth. So, what they are telling me,is that while they are downstate protesting cuts in unemployment (which has been cited in the local paper) they are also protesting increase in business profits are, there fore, increases in jobs, which would help to negate the need for decreases in unemployment, because unemployment would begin to go down, which would mean the state wouldn’t have to cut things nearly as much as they currently are doing. That, to me, makes no sense at all.

One of the last points on the pamphlet states that no union dues are used for political activities, that members have to elect to allow their dues to be used. Sure, this might mean that my dollar doesn’t go directly towards, say, President Obama’s re-election campaign, but it was used to make that pamphlet, wasn’t it? It was used to send people down to Indy in a bus, wasn’t it? Don’t tell me that my dues don’t help out with politics that I don’t agree with, because just me reading this load of garbage on a pamphlet not suitable to wipe my ass with is enough to make me want every dollar I’ve had to give to them back in my wallet, with interest.

There is one area that I have to agree with the unions. Part of the legislation states that those that choose to opt out of the union would still be afforded union protection; that needs to go. Right to work is all about fairness and choice for the workers, and it isn’t fair for those that pay their monetary dues if a person that doesn’t pay is afforded those that exact same protection. It would be like forcing all lawyers to represent clients, even if they can’t pay. It’s not right. But, even if that isn’t taken out of the bill, I still have my support behind it, because realistically, just because a union official is forced to represent a person doesn’t guarantee that that representation will be worth a damn. Heck, that already happens, so it wouldn’t be a leap from normality.

All in all, right to work legislation is a winner, and I think that once it passes and the dust settles, and the actual union workers are looking around, realizing that they still have their jobs and haven’t had their pay reduced, that it will be highly beneficial to this state and will reap rewards both for the workers AND the business owners.

WRITERS EDIT:

This aspect of right to work is written from the private sector point of view only. I hadn’t realized until later on that I had not clarified that, and I apologize. This does not take into account other aspects of pending legislation, particularly dealing with possible education reforms. The main reason for that is simple; I don’t write about what I’m not sure of, and I have yet to form a concrete opinion on the educational reforms proposed. Also, as a couple of emails have noted, though my use of the word “retarded” was of a literal sense, the word has connotations associated with it that may offend and take away from the piece itself. I have since changed that wording, and apologize if you were offended; no offense or ridicule was meant from the use of that word. Thank you.

You Have The Right To Remain…Talkative and High?

Ok. Let’s go through the list of things that qualify as a “right”. A “right”, as defined in the Dictionary, has many different meaning, but the one that we are covering today is:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

The problem that I always have with the left is that EVERYTHING ends up being a right. We have the right to health care, according to the left (even if others are being forced to pay for it). We have a right to a job, according to many on the left (even if it means hiring those that are unqualified over those that are). And now, we, apparently, through governmental assistance, have a right to a cell phone.

I received some junk mail a few weeks ago from Assurance Wireless, in connection to Virgin Mobile. I didn’t give it too much of a hard look until the other day, when I started to scroll through exactly what the paper was. It was an application to qualify for a FREE cell phone and FREE wireless service. In order to qualify for this? I would have to prove that I am either on Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or one of the other programs on the extensive list.

Now, Virgin Mobile isn’t in the business of handing out free crap, so you know they are being reimbursed in full from the government. The only thing is, I can’t remember ever hearing about this, and this is something that should have perked my ears, because it essentially puts “cell phone rights” into the same category as, oh, I don’t know, liberty? The pursuit of happiness? Where, oh where, does the government get off thinking that everyone is in NEED of a cell phone? And before you yammer off the “in case of emergencies” talking points, realize that every cell phone, even if it isn’t activated, will call 911 from it. It’s a fact. So that still doesn’t explain the need for:

*250 FREE minutes, each month, for nationwide Local and Long-distance!

*FREE voice mail account!

*Caller ID!

*Not to mention the FREE Assurance Wireless Phone! All with no long term contracts, bills, activation fees, recurring fees, or surcharges!

This is so perplexing to me. How is this company applying for their federal assistance? Does this essentially mean that people can use food stamps to pay for a cell phone? Since WHEN has a cell phone been a right, and where does that end?

People wonder why I’m weary of welfare programs. Welfare programs are supposed to be for the ESSENTIALS. I understand food stamps, and unemployment benefits, and the like, as long as they are put at a low level. These programs aren’t supposed to make you live COMFORTABLY, just LIVE. It’s supposed to be enough to keep food in your mouths, roofs over your head, and a diaper on your baby. That’s it. But, alas, it never seems to be enough for those that feel that they are entitled to minutes, paid for with OUR tax dollars, on their cell phones. Not just minutes, mind you, but a FREE CELL PHONE. This is ridiculous. The fact that such a program exists helps to prove my point that welfare is a defunct system.

This brings me to my second point that has been proposed in the past and should certainly be a requirement to qualify for any kind of welfare: drug tests. If I have to pass a drug test in order to work, somebody that is receiving government assistance should have to pass one to receive their benefits. Would it be a costly endeavor? I suppose so, if you did it to every single person who applies. The nurses would have to be paid, the labs would have to paid to process the urine, etc., etc. However, just like my work has done in the past (and lots of other employers), random drug tests work as a good deter-ant. If the government took a handful of random welfare recipients each month and called them in for drug tests, this would keep a good majority of them from spending our tax money on drugs.

No matter what ones view on drug use is, whether it be complete outlawing or decriminalization or flat out legalization, the common thread that should bind these three groups together should be, I hope, that no outside person should have to pay for another person to get high. Most people don’t have a problem forking over some tax dollars here and there to ensure that those that can’t help themselves are able to put food on their kids’ plates and a roof over their families heads. But a line is crossed when people use those funds wrongly. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen, either. I’ve heard people at work brag about selling food stamps in exchange for cash. After the bad flooding that happened a couple of years back, over half the people in the locker room were bragging about waiting in line to receive free food stamps from FEMA. They didn’t have to show ANY proof, what so ever, that they had had any flood damage. It was, and is, a disgusting abuse of the system, and these abuses should be shut down whenever possible. We can start by not paying for peoples cell phones and their drugs and go from there.

Mike Pence Won’t Seek Republican Nomination

…for President, at least.

I still think he’s going to run for Governor, personally. I’ve actually figured for a while now that he wasn’t going to run for President just yet. He still has so much more to do, after all! He’s a young, conservative, House member who has a following all over the nation (not to mention, obviously, Indiana), and I think he’s going to sit back and wait a bit before running for “the big one”. I think he’ll be happy being influential to the legislation process and isn’t too worried about being Commander in Chief as of right now. Plus, once he’s President, that’s about it. Retirement time. Sure, he’ll give some speeches here and there, write his memoirs, but after that, GAME OVER. I don’t think Pence is ready to serve 4-8 and then just sit on the sidelines just yet.

I also think that, perhaps, this announcement greatly ups the chance that Mitch is going to run for President in 2012. Nothing but speculation, of course, but it makes sense. Two people from Indiana running for President makes no sense, not to mention that Mitch has earned the opportunity to do this without any unneeded competition from his local political buddies. He’s paid his dues.

Below is Pence’s letter to friends and supporters (borrowed from Hoosierpundit):

Friends and Supporters,

Sincerely,
Mike Pence

There are a couple of key things I note about this letter.

First, he is sure to mention Governor Daniels in this letter, and reiterates Mitch’s statement about “important work to do in Washington and in Indianapolis”. This, to me, shows two things. One, that Mitch fully expects a great Indiana Republican to over after him (which, Pence would fit the bill), and two, with Washington being mentioned, one would assume that Mitch is using this as an opening to run for President.

Second, by driving across the country and seeing what the people have to say (which will be a resounding Hell yeah) about his running, he’s ensuring that he keeps this campaign grass roots.

My predictions: Pence will run for Governor, and will win, especially if the Democrats from Lake County try and run against him. Mitch might run for President yet…right now I put the odds at about 50%. I’m just not sure yet.

For My Wife…

This Tuesday, February 1st, my wife and I will celebrate our four year wedding anniversary.

I still remember that day. We were married at the Lake County Courthouse (being young, neither of us had any idea that a wedding ceremony was a big deal to our loved ones and family, and we had our second “ceremony” and reception a few months later) by a GIANT black lady. I don’t mean that she was fat or anything, just that she was built like a linebacker. I fully expected her to begin to do the Super Bowl shuffle right before she asked me to say I do. I remember sitting in the waiting room, talking with an elderly couple who were getting married for the second time. They had gotten divorced mid way through life and had both remarried. Upon meeting up again, and finding out that both of their spouses had passed away, they rekindled their love and were getting hitched for the second (and presumably last) time.

I remember telling the gentleman that this was a shotgun wedding, not even realizing what that phrase meant. I had always thought that a shotgun wedding meant that it was spur of the moment, or quick, like a shotgun blast or something. I wondered why he had given me a funny look and continually glanced at my soon to be wife’s stomach. I regret not having my parents there, but like I said, I was young and dumb and we wanted to get married RIGHT THEN, dammit. Nothing was standing in our way. It made my mother very upset, unfortunately. If I could I’d go back in time to change that. But, it was Lincoln who said, “I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday,” and so I would hope that the wisdom that experience granted me amends my poor decision making. In any event, I have thrown myself off track. A couple of months later, when planning our reception, I had had a similar “DUH” moment when my mother had asked what we wanted to eat at the wedding. I responded hors devours, only pronounced it “whores dee vores” (I can still remember everyone laughing like mad at that one, somebody replying that that sounded like one Hell of a wedding).

We’ve grown up a lot over the past few years. I started going back to school, we’ve purchased our first home, we’ve brought two wonderful children into this world…I’d say it’s been a success. And she’s put up with my politics, of course, the core reason this post has made it onto this page. It’s important to me that my wife be supportive and involved with every decision I make, because it effects her as much if not more, and I’m sure every person reading this that is involved with politics can attest to this sentiment. If it wasn’t for her, I’d never get to work on time, let alone fulfill my commitments with politics. For me, on our anniversary, I would just like to say thank you to my wife and let her know that she is important to me in this regard, as well as all others. Political pundits, politicians, Hell, anyone, with a wife should take a moment and thank them for the help that they receive and the support structure that a loving, honest, understanding wife provides.

I was finishing William F. Buckley Jr.’s “The Reagan I Knew” the other day, and an old National Review article that he reprinted at the end of the book made me think of the relationship I have with my wife. In the article, he talks about the love and adoration that Ron and Nancy have for one another:

What was the president’s happiest time during his political years? Well, the question reminded him of something Clark Gable once said, which is that the happiest sound in the world is that of the footsteps of the one you love approaching the other side of the door. “That’s the way I feel about Nancy.”

No farewell to the Reagans could more appropriately close than by quoting the final paragraphs of Whittaker Chamber’s “Witness”. “One of the tenderest of Greek fables tells how the gods decided to go down to the earth as beggars to try the charity of men. The god Hermes, clad in rags, knocked at many prosperous doors and was driven from each. Toward evening, he came to the meanest door of all, a mere hut, where two old people, Philemon and Baucis, his wife, tended a few vines and milked their goats. Hermes knocked there. Because his need touched them, the old people took him in. They shared their meal with him, and at night, let him sleep on the floor before their fire, trusting to their poverty and their age to prevent any harm that the beggar might intend.

“In the morning, Hermes asked each of the old people to name his most secret wish, supposing that it would be for longer life, gold, or great flocks. The dearest wish of each turned out to be the same-that both might die, as they lived, together, that neither might die first, for neither could endure to face what remained of a life that would be unendurable without the other.

The god, now gleaming through his rags, raised his staff-the caduceus with the twined snakes, interlacing good and evil. Where Philemon and Baucis had stood, two trees rustled up whose branches met and touched when the wind blew.”

I remember a time, a younger time, when Sandee and I would characterize ours as a “Sid and Nancy” type of love; a couple who lived fast and hard and expected to burn out before their lifestyle caught up with them. Now a days? I’ll trade Sid and Nancy for Ron and Nancy any day. Thank you for all of the help that you have been, and continue to be, both with my political doings as well as the raising of my children and everything in between.

Happy anniversary honey bunny. I love you.

Some Thoughts About The Proposed “Ronald Reagan Road”

Ok, since I couldn’t find any good sized pictures of Vale Park Road (mostly just house listings), I figured this will do just fine. Plus, this apartment complex gets some free advertising. Go them.

This whole issue revolves around a want to rename Vale Park Road, making it Ronald Reagan Road, in celebration of Reagan’s 100th birthday. This sort of thing, first of all, is not uncommon. We have several schools named after Presidents even. Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Washington…in addition to roads named after Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Jefferson, etc., etc., etc. It isn’t just that I’m a staunch Republican that I support this idea. In forty years, if I’m in any sort of significant office where I have any sort of say, I’ll gladly vote “ya” in favor of a Clinton Street, in sixty years or so I’ll gladly vote “ya” for an Obama Boulevard; this isn’t about politics. This about honoring a past President.

I had first decided to write about this issue a couple of days ago, when the Post-Tribune ran an article claiming a poll that 60% of people in Valpo opposed the renaming. I was actually a bit surprised…until I read the last paragraph of the article.

“JEM Research (the group that conducted the poll) conducts polls on behalf of the Democratic Party, but DeWitt said her company was not paid by anyone for this poll”

Oh really! A group that polls for Democrats, when polling for a name change for a road being named after a past Republican President, came up with a number like 60% opposition. If anyone out there could see my face right now, I’m sure the surprised and shocked look that rests upon it would cause you to worry. I’m certainly not claiming that the group fudged the numbers, or even made sure they called more D’s than R’s…all I’m saying is, I’m so baffled I can hardly contain myself. Really. Seriously.

Besides that point, there are many different angles to this. A group that is apparently headed by Michael Essany has come out as extremely opposed to this name change. Now, I like Essany (I’m dropping the sarcasm by this point, I felt I needed to say that since the format of the written word can make it troublesome for the reader to tell sarcasm sometimes). And I think he makes a couple of good, key points. For example, I had no idea the historical relevance of Vale Park Road (being a Hebron-ite, I don’t have memorized all of Valparaiso’s history, my apologies, readers). He makes the point that perhaps another area would be better, one that doesn’t have a road with such heritage. I agree. Perhaps another road would be better, and as a matter of fact, so does Chuck Williams, the Porter County Republican Chairman that proposed the idea.

“We’re going to have to sit down and talk about it and go through the process,” he said. “We have to take into consideration any of the businesses or homeowners who would be affected. That’s my main concern. There are a lot of things we can look at, but I think we have to do something in celebration.

“We put something out, and sometimes, when you throw out an idea, better ideas come up.”

That is where I agree with Essany, the areas I disagree?

First, I think he is tackling this thing awfully aggressively. I haven’t a doubt in my mind that Essany is being earnest when he gives his points of view, but for something like this? I think that such an aggressive campaign against something so simple as a road name change is unneeded, personally. I would have first appealed to Williams personally, or even written an op-ed suggesting a separate location. If nothing happens after that, then perhaps start filing petitions and contacting newspapers. Below is Essany’s quote from the Post-Trib:

“We’re not anti-Reagan,” Essany said. “We would not want to see it renamed to honor Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy or anything else. Let’s do it in a place that doesn’t detract from the streets that honor the city. I think it has politics written all over it. The sentiment is nice, but in a year with municipal elections coming it helps the all-Republican officials.”

The spot where I disagree (or rather, think he gets a little off base) is the closing sentence about it helping the all-Republican officials. I don’t think that is the intended idea, and I don’t think it would help all that much, if at all. Reagan was a pretty popular President for members of both parties. As a mill worker who bugs his fellow union members with political thought and commentary on a daily basis, I can honestly say that Reagan was a President that most union Democrats either A)ended up really liking or B)they voted for. With a President like Reagan, in my experience talking to people, politics is rarely actually brought up. “Republican” is not the first word that pops into their heads.

The arguments that some have made about the cost is greatly exaggerated, and doesn’t give much faith to our post office workers. I have two addresses, so I live so close to the post office. I have a PO Box, and a physical address. Some of my mail has the PO Box, some has the physical. Amazingly enough, the employees have the good sense to not just throw away my physical addressed mail! Could it me, that once the employees are informed that “Vale Park Road” and “Reagan Road” are the same thing, they could handle this with relative ease? I think so. The cost of road signs being changed would be paid by donations, so this is a relatively moot point.

As a summary:

1) Essany and his group shouldn’t jump to the “petition filing” mode just yet. Williams seems more than willing to change the location. Offer advice, let him know your grievances, and work with him to help find a suitable road that would not interfere in Valparaiso’s history.

2) The idea itself is a good one, and politics should not play a role in honoring those that have served as Commander in Chief.

3) Everyone should take a chill pill (sorry, an old saying I’ve adopted from my father. Dated, yes. True, absolutely.) It’s not as though Williams wants to force all Valpo residents to vote straight ticket R’s. There are many arguments and battles that will and should get heated; this is not one of them.

Lieberman To Retire in 2012

While Senator Lieberman has never been my favorite Senator (far from it, actually), I’ve always respected him. Yes, he caucuses with the Democrats, and votes wrong on 90% of the legislation. Yes, he was a Democrat originally and, arguably, only switched to Independent when he lost his bid in the primary. And yes, he was Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 elections.

Those are a lot of negatives for any conservative Republican to have to look past, but as I’ve written in past posts before: it’s all about the area, baby. Connecticut is, like Massachusetts and other New England states, a much more liberal area. Naturally, the more liberal leaning (particularly on social issues) politicians will come out ahead 9 times out of 10. This immediately means a politician from that area is not going to be as socially conservative, as, say, Mike Huckabee.

Besides realizing why he voted on some of the bills that he has, one has to realize what he, coupled with John McCain, try to stand for. He and McCain are good buddies, and work across the aisle any chance that they get. Granted, I don’t think that reaching across the aisle simply to put forth the act works out well if you are selling out your principles at the same time, but, on certain occasions and in different situations I applaud the effort and the civility that this fosters. Heck, he even supported the Republican ticket and said this about our President to be:

“In the Senate, during the 3 1/2 years that Sen. Obama has been a member, he has not reached across party lines to . accomplish anything significant, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party to get something done.”

Those are some tough words against the person that would end up becoming our next President, however, Lieberman was right. There have been scant areas where Obama has really reached across the center, and most of those have been fairly recently.

While Lieberman will probably not be remembered as the most influential member of the Senate, he will be remembered for his determination to reach across the aisle…even if it was a fools errand. Besides that, it is important for conservatives to remember: once this moderate is out, it probably won’t be filled by another. It’s Connecticut, after all. Sen Lieberman was lucky to win that seat as an Independent to begin with, and with his sloping poll ratings, it’s apparent that the residents in Connecticut don’t want a moderate Independent anymore. Perhaps a moderate Republican will take a good run at the seat, and perhaps follow Scott Brown’s lead. But, that is pretty unlikely, given the number of liberal Democrats that that state has elected.

So, remember, fellow Republicans: All of those that have wished for Lieberman to go away…be careful what you wish for.

An Open Letter: Jared Loughner, May Ye Rot in Hell

Dear Jared Lougner,

I’m not certain that you are able to check the internet in jail (although with all the rights that criminals get now-a-days it certainly wouldn’t surprise me) but I just thought that I would write you a little letter regarding your recent idiotic acts which resulted in the death and injury of several people, including a moderate Democratic Congresswoman.

To begin, I’d like to say that it is people like you that give those of us with legitimate concerns regarding the size and scope of government a bad name. I don’t buy the whole “Rush and Palin are the culprits! They incited violence!” cop out. I think people are going to do what they are going to do. Inflammatory language and rhetoric are so prevalent and ingrained in our society that it’s become common. Whether it’s animal rights activists protesting outside of Eagles games, pro-life activists protesting outside of Planned Parenthood, Code Pink and other anti-war activists protesting outside of Army recruiting centers, or TEA Party rallies popping up in front of Congressmen and women offices, there isn’t one ideological group that hasn’t cursed at or made threatening gestures towards those that they disapprove of. To define you as “typical right wing” like I’ve read some idiots say, is wrong. I think it negates your personal responsibility to keep your self under check, even if your temper does flare or you do feel the urge to do something stupid, like pull a gun on a group of innocent people and start pulling the trigger (by the way, stupid, because of what you did Arizona Democrats are already talking about stricter gun laws, using your stupidity to push bunk liberal legislation. Happy? Idiot.). Because personal responsibility is the backbone of the Republican party, and those of us that are ADULTS learn and know how to socialize our differences with people with out screaming at them or shooting them. I understand you were a big fan of Alex Jones though, so no huge surprise there. Alex Jones has been claiming himself to be on the right (and, I suppose in some deranged backwards way his thinking can be characterized as being on the right) for years, and so he falls into that same category that you do, Jared, at least according to those that described your character.

Neurotic. Paranoid. Anti-social. Dangerous. Serial killer-like.

These do not describe the people that I have met through politics, or that I consider to be “on the right”. What you are, Jared, is best described as a child. From what I have read about you, you were kicked out of school, told to see a shrink (which you apparently decided not to do), couldn’t get into the Army for reasons they would not disclose (maybe because you’re bat sh*t crazy) and believed that the government was one great conspiracy. Sounds a lot like you were probably a “truther”, but even then that’s not an excuse, because you didn’t go after anybody that would have been even remotely connected to the “great pumpkin”, I mean “the Easter Bunny capers”…wait, wait… I’m mixing up my fairy tales here…

Regardless, the point is Jared, you’ll get what’s coming to you. I hope you suffer while in prison, and then suffer even longer in the after life. You can say this is a letter to incite violence, I don’t care. I’ve always said that I wish horrible pain and suffering upon those that rape, molest, and kill innocent people, especially children. You killed a nine year old girl you worthless rat. If that was my family you would have to be praying that you died in prison before I ever had a chance to get my hands on you. Because you would suffer.

But I’m sure your suffering quite a bit right now. And you thought the government was a pain in your behind? You haven’t seen anything yet.

Yours truly, may you rot in Hell,

Travis Gearhart

Some Thoughts About Begging For Money…

Just last week, my buddy Greg called me while we I was on my way home from work.

“Hey, I got a question Travis.”

“What’s that?”

“How long have the Gary Firefighters been laid off?”

“Uhh…I don’t know. A few days, a week tops, why?”

The reason, he described to me, was that there was a person in the middle of Portage, in full Firefighter garb, holding out a boot asking for money. The fellow, according to the account, had a sign that read, “Out of work Gary Firefighter, will take anything.”

Before I go any farther, a brief note about the Gary Firefighter lay off debacle. It’s bull crap. The city of Gary is so bass ackword it’s unbelievable. The government prefers to lay off Firemen and Policemen, people that the city CAN NOT afford to not have, in lieu of making tough decisions regarding combating gang violence or finding ways to entice business back into the area so that the city of Gary could become a less hostile place and, in turn, bring in families (preferably working ones) to expand the tax pool to increase revenue. The roads are horrid in Gary. The crime is rampant. And yet cops and firemen are the first to take a hit. Never mind that Mayor Rudy Clay gets to drive around a hummer, is trying to bring about a worthless Michael Jackson museum, or stands behind Lake County Democrat crooks like Anne Seaton.

However, that was but a side bar. The main point of this piece is about a Firefighter, a Gary one, sitting in the middle of Portage begging for money.

My first question is: why isn’t he begging for money in Gary? Isn’t Gary his town that he works in? Perhaps he lives in Portage. I don’t know. But I did find it slightly humorous that the Firefighter’s won’t even beg for money in Gary. Maybe because he knows he’ll get mugged after that boot gets filled up.

My second question is: WHY, on God’s green Earth, is he ALREADY begging?

I mean, I don’t understand the concept at all myself. I have far too much pride to beg for money. Sure, I suppose if it absolutely came down to no other option, I would beg to feed my family, but I would do everything in my power to avoid it. Hence, my question of why so soon with the boot and sign. He’s been laid off less than a week, and his very first thought is to just ask for money from strangers. Really?! You’re not going to try and get another job? You aren’t going to try selling some things? Maybe he has a motorcycle that he could sell to make rent for a couple months, or a boat, or a bunch of CD’s, or ANYTHING?! Is this really the mindset that is becoming all too popular? The thought of, “Well, I’m laid off, looks like it’s time to hit the streets. Not for a job, but rather to beg. Yeah, that’ll work,” is not one that I understand. At all.

Before you start to chastise me for being heartless, please, take a second and THINK about it. What would you do? Would it really take YOU less than a week to be bumming for change? I don’t think so, just like I don’t think this fellow is down to his last resources yet. Hell, he might not even be a fireman! I’m not saying that you shouldn’t stop and give him money, either. I routinely give what I can to what charities I can (not thousand dollar donations or anything, but a few bucks for the troops here, some change in the Salvation Army’s bucket there…), and I think private charities are GREAT ways to show the government that people can, and do, privately take care of the poor and down trodden with out the interference of some bureaucrat. I’ve also given food to those homeless people asking for it. I’ll stop off at McDonald’s and get a guy a couple cheeseburgers, sure. It’s easy to tell if a guy or girl is actually hungry. It’s easy to see the shame in a person’s eyes, the worry on their face, when they are truly down to their last option. And that is incredibly sad. That’s why it is so important, when a situation like this arises, that one questions whether or not he is truly in need. I know some will say “Well, it’s none of your business!”, but if I’m giving somebody some of my hard earned money, then it very much IS my business. Besides that, it’s important to find out if you are actually helping somebody out, or getting scammed.

So, with regards to the fellow standing in Portage? I’m sorry, my friend. I’m sorry that the city of Gary screwed you over. But you won’t get my money, not yet. Maybe I would have thought differently if your sign read, “Will put out house fires for food.”

Banks Tackles Labor Monster

Now, I know what all of the union “brothers” are going to say right off the bat. “Oh, HERE we go. Travis is going to get up on his soap box to whine about the union that ALLOWS him to keep his job!”

Yes, and no.

The main basis of this post has little to do with my own thoughts on unions or anything to do with my piece from last year. What this post is about is freshman Sen. Jim Banks’ impressive, aggressive, political moves right off the starting block. As you can read in the post below this one, Banks has already moved ahead with his effort to do away with the “death tax” here in Indiana. Now he is pushing for another very conservative ideal: the protection of union workers from…well…their union.

Excerpt borrowed from “Angry White Boy“:

State Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) recently
filed legislation seeking an amendment to the Indiana Constitution guaranteeing
an individual’s right to vote by secret ballot in any election where union
representation is at stake.

So what does your run of the mill, conservative union worker think of this legislation? I think it’s wonderful news. I haven’t ever been able to grasp the concept that so many Democrats have proposed that “secret ballots” are not needed. Of course they are needed! It’s nobody’s damn business how I vote, especially my union officials’ business! There have been several instances at my own place of business where I have not been exactly…ecstatic about the cases that my union has fought for (and in some cases won) and the cases which they have not given the time of day (which I thought were valid arguments and cases where union representation could have been needed).

I know, I know, “union brothers”, if you don’t like it, be a union griever yourself. And I would, if I had even an extra minute a week that wasn’t already filled. I’d do it in a heart beat. In fact, when helping secure an endorsement from my union for a candidate’s campaign that I was managing, I was offered a job in the union where I would put up the information fliers at the different shops. I almost did it, too, until the ridiculous flier about “Why Obamacare is Good For Union Workers” flier was published the following week (not only was the flier flat out inaccurate about the information put forth, it didn’t in any way mention that the union deal that was fan-dangled is only temporary). You see, it’s not that I’m “anti-union”, or even “pro-union”, at least in the sense that each faction sees themselves. I’m a union worker, but I find the union to be almost unnecessary anymore, and in some cases, even a hindrance on those of us that think that because we work harder and do extra we should have the right to at least ASK for a raise. And perhaps, just perhaps, a fellow that has worked there for 35 years and can barely tie his own shoe shouldn’t be operating certain pieces of equipment. And maybe, just maybe, during contract negotiations, they shouldn’t have fought like Hell to stop random drug testing. But…I am but one “brother”.

The idea of this “brotherhood” runs contrary to my thoughts on being an individual person. Heck, in a more recent post, even with my politics, I won’t sign on to any persons “camp” (although Banks is quickly becoming my favorite State Senator). And so yes, even though I am in a union and recognize that, at one point in time, unions were extremely important (now a days, in some cases, important still, although not nearly as important as the days of zero safety gear, unlimited hours of forced work, and little dirty coal mining minors) I still think there are important boundaries that unions cross over on a daily basis, and I think in many senses union leaders can be hypocrites. Union bosses want to donate money (in many cases union dues) to political campaigns, but want restrictions on “big businesses” contributions and lobbying efforts. They want continued raises for employees, regardless of merit or circumstances, but then whine when the results are mass lay offs. There are a hundred other little things, from my own personal place of employment that I could rattle on about, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t in my best interest as a person that wants to continue to…well…work. And besides that, it wouldn’t be right for me to write about the people that I work with everyday, who are themselves nine times out ten hard working people who are just trying to put food on their families plates.

What will Banks’ proposal stir up? Who knows. Maybe the unions won’t balk (or at least won’t lash out). One political insider closely related to this case had this to say.

“This won’t see the light of day unless tea partiers and conservatives force their representatives to vote. Mitch doesn’t care for issues like this, he prefers fiscal measures.  Northwest Indiana legislators are scared to death of upsetting the labor monster.”

“Senator Banks is leading the conservative charge and forcing legislators to make their true colors known.  Looking forward to the 2012 Gubernatorial campaign this kind of legislation will separate the RINO’s from the conservatives.  Is Mike Pence this kind of Governor?”

Now, I hate the term RINO, only because it used to describe just about EVERY conservative that doesn’t fit into one cookie cutter mold. BUT I agree that there are RINO’s, and I think that allowing union members their private votes is a very good indicator of a RINO laying around in the tall, tall grass. As far as where Mitch stands on this issue, I’m not sure it’s really in his best interest to play in this particular ball game much, other than giving a neutral statement about supporting his team, because he has already stirred up some union pots with his polarizing educational reforms and getting into fights with more unions is not going to help his Presidential run (I’ll have to uncross my fingers now so I can continue typing). Mike Pence, on the other hand, could and should be vocal about support for legislation of this kind, especially if he wants to start creating a platform for a 2012 Gubernatorial run (which is very likely).