How to fix Wisconsin

I came up with an idea the other day that I thought I'd share. It seemed to me that you have a lot of vilification going on regarding the events in Wisconsin. I'd like to share a bit of context to the issue and then share my idea.

First, unions are not inherently bad as one side likes to claim. They serve a very important purpose, protecting employees from large corporations. This, in my opinion, is and should be their primary goal. However, when a union represents employees against a corporation, that union is trying to get a bigger slice of the "corporate pie" which is solely made up of the profits of the corporation.

Second, public sector unions do not serve this same goal. Sure, they represent the workers and protect their rights. Here, public sector unions are useful. However, there seems to be a disconnect in the debate in Wisconsin. One side seems to think unions shouldn't exist at all in the public sector while the other seems to think the legislature does not have the power and authority to limit union activity. Both happen to be wrong. Nonetheless, public sector unions are not seeking a greater slice of the "corporate profit pie" as private sector unions do. Instead, when they are negotiating a contract, they are asking for a greater slice of the "tax income pie".

This is not the same philosophically. One seeks a greater portion of what they've helped produce (the profits of a solid company and product) while the other seeks a greater portion of money from the pockets of the people in that state whom they serve. In one case, you can argue that the laborers have a right to a bigger piece of pie, but I am not certain you can make that same argument regarding public sector unions. It seems to me that the people who are represented by the legislature have every right to determine how their tax dollars are spent.

So...with that in mind...I propose that all collective bargaining agreements by public sector unions be approved in a referendum. Union members vote to approve the contract negotiated by their representatives, so why shouldn't the taxpayers of a state get to vote on the contracts negotiated by their representatives (being either the legislature or other entities working on its behalf). This seems like a fair and equitable way to resolve the issue in Wisconsin. After all, in such a referendum, there would be little on either side to complain about once the outcome was final.

Just thinking out loud

I've been thinking lately that we don't seem to have improved much over our last President...so I got to thinking about how Obama is different than Bush and just couldn't come up with much.

After all:
Obama is withdrawing troops from Iraq on the exact same time schedule put in place by Bush...

Obama is fighting the war in Afghanistan in all the wrong ways (this is different only in that they fought it differently, but neither of them fought it right) while Bush fought the war in Afghanistan in all the wrong ways...

Bush spent lots of money unnecessarily and bailed out corporations while Obama spends tons more money unnecessarily and bailed out corporations...

Bush had an unprecedented expansion of government with the Dept. of Homeland Security while Obama has had an unprecedented expansion of government with the health care bill...

Bush messed around with health care by creating the Medicare drug benefit that doesn't do anything and Obama is messing around with health care by passing a massive health care bill that doesn't do anything good (yes, this is opinion)...

Bush was slow to respond in New Orleans and didn't use his bully pulpit to great effect during the crisis thus hurting the people of Lousiana while Obama waffled regarding the oil spill crisis and didn't do anything, especially not using the bully pulpit, thus hurting the people of Louisiana...

Bush kept interest rates artificially low thus causing the housing bubble and Obama has kept interest rates artificially low in conjunction with unprecedented levels of printing money thus risking a money bubble...

Bush exerted executive privilege to keep things secret and Obama holds closed door meetings that nobody talks about to keep things secret...

Bush passed tax cuts to stimulate the economy and Obama agreed to extend those same tax cuts to prevent slowing the economic recovery...

Bush couldn't speak very well and tended to say stupid things while Obama doesn't speak very well off script, tending to say stupid things.

REALLY?! What are the differences between these two Presidents? I came up with a few.

The differences:

Bush gave bad speeches that said nothing and that nobody listened to while Obama gives great speeches that speak volumes if people bothered to listen to them...

Bush acted decisively for good or ill in regards to international crises while Obama pussy foots around and waits to "see what develops" before acting on international crises

Bush won praises from the every man because it came off sounding just like them while Obama won a nobel prize because he came off sounding just like the elites

Bush cultivated our relationship with Britain while Obama scoffs at our relationship with Britain

Bush, for good or ill, spoke strongly on the international stage while Obama, for good or ill, apologizes for the U.S. all over the international stage.

That's about it. Feel free to make more of these comparisons for either same or different in the comments section.