The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

More on the Democrats' fealty to organized labor

The news came out a long time ago, it seems, but I only found out Monday in an editorial that appeared in the Washington Examiner. It seems that in Michigan, back when Democrat Jennifer Granholm was Governor, they came up with a scheme to line the pockets of organized labor at the expense of disabled kids!

Under Granholm, Michigan classified all parents who care for their own severely disabled children at home as state employees if they use Medicaid funds to do so. The designation did not confer any benefits upon parents, but it did allow the SEIU to garnish union dues from their Medicaid checks. Granholm and the unions thus figured out a way to redirect money that should be going to care for the poor to support union political causes instead.

Michigan's new Republican governor signed a bill this year that would end this practice for good. But the SEIU went to court, temporarily blocking that law from going into effect, and then put a measure on the November ballot that would make the Granholm-era status quo permanent.

Marge Faville, head of SEIU Healthcare Michigan, said at last week's Democratic convention that Republicans want to stop her union from skimming poor kids' Medicaid checks because “unions are effective, we make sure Democrats get [into office] and we're going to make sure Obama gets in.” That, or maybe because Medicaid should pay for poor people's medical expenses, not pad the bank accounts of union bosses like Faville, who made $155,489 last year and has a five-figure expense account.


The Democrats love to say that they are “for the poor and middle-class.” But in Michigan, they are perfectly happy to steal from the poor to enrich organized labor. An example, cited in the Examiner's editorial:

To illustrate the effects of Granholm's policy, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy offered the story of Robert Haynes, a retired police officer. He and his wife care for their two children, who suffer from cerebral palsy and must be fed and wear diapers despite being older than 30. The Hayneses suffer the added indignity of having the SEIU deduct dues money from their Medicaid checks every month. The SEIU raked in $6 million last year on the backs of people like them.


And this is not the only union that has been dealt additional undeserved state money that should have gone to people in need:

While in office, Granholm established an almost identical dues-skimming arrangement that forced independent day care providers (many of whom serve parents who receive day care subsidies) to pay dues to the United Auto Workers union. When the matter came before a court, an attorney for that union was forced to admit that unionization “could be imposed on anyone” if the state decided that the union provided “added value.” So if you don't think it can happen, look to Michigan.


Now that's one big reason I'm with the Republicans! (Please read also my post dated March 30, 2011.)

No comments: