-
The (Real) Great Divide
May 2, 2013 | 28 comments
-
Main Street Deserves a Level Playing Field
March 15, 2013 | 54 comments
-
It’s Not Over by a Long Shot
November 19, 2012 | 79 comments
-
The Real Choice
November 2, 2012 | 50 comments
-
Obama’s Real Second Term Plan
October 26, 2012 | 55 comments
With the Tea Partiers
The War of the Flea
Tea partiers are proving feisty in opposing public employee behemoths.
By any standard, unions are a behemoth in American politics. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that between 1990 and 2010, the 24 largest unions gave more than $500 million in campaign contributions, 95 percent of it to Democrats. Most of the biggest contributors were public sector unions, the largest being the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which over that 20-year span gave $40,281,900 to Democrats and $547,700 to Republicans. Outside the two major parties, no entity is so heavily invested and wields so much power in American politics.
In a vicious cycle, the public sector unions take dues from their members, who are paid in tax dollars, and then use those dues to work for more influence and more tax dollars from the American taxpayer. With each cycle, more and more money flows from the taxpayer to the public sector unions.
This process has made the public sector unions in particular a significant force in American politics, but American taxpayers increasingly understand that much of that influence and power has been gained off their backs. Thanks to the tea partiers, these unions are starting to encounter a counter-insurgent “war of the flea.” When massively superior forces confront a much smaller force, one would expect that, at least on paper, the massive force would easily prevail. But history shows it doesn’t always work out that way. In his book Violent Politics, William Polk describes a war of independence from the early 20th century:
The elephantine British army in Ireland was harassed constantly, from dozens, if not hundreds of points, a war of attrition that attacked financial interests, making Ireland ungovernable while gaining support from the world community. Against a flea, massive force appears attractive, but the elephant typically uses violent methods, repugnant to the public and actually seem to prove the militant’s propaganda.
I have been saying for some time that public sector unions and the Tea Party are on the front lines of a growing conflict. One side seeks statism, more government, more taxpayer-funded benefits, and public officials who put their interests ahead of the majority of the American people. The other side realizes that government has grown well above and beyond what the Founders envisioned, that we are well down the path of financial destruction due to fiscal irresponsibility, and that too many elected officials no longer serve the interests of the American people.
On February 20, on the steps of the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, the first public manifestation of this conflict played out. At a rally organized by local American Majority staff and tea partiers, some 10,000 people voiced support for Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill, while on the other side of the capitol, two to three times that many union members gathered to chant, “Kill the bill, kill the bill!”
The interesting aspect of the pro-Walker bill rally was that it was organized in less than 48 hours. Unions are no longer the only ones with this organizing skill. Some will note that the unions protested in the tens of thousands nonstop for weeks, while the tea partiers held only one, one-day rally. But it should also be noted that the tea partiers moved past the protesting into real action: Days after the Madison rally, Tea Party leader Dan Hunt of Kenosha filed recall papers against state senator Bob Wirch, one of the 14 Democratic state senators who fled the state in an effort to avoid addressing the Walker bill. Another Tea Party leader, Kim Simac of Eagle River, did the same against Jim Holperin, another senator who fled the state. The petition drive to force a recall effort is in full force at the writing of this column, with the hope that enough signatures will be gathered to force a special election against Wirch, Holperin, and potentially Dave Hansen of Green Bay before the end of June. (Hansen, incidentally, is a former Green Bay Department of Public Works employee and a 20-year Teamster. Today he is part of the Democratic leadership in the state senate.)
BEYOND WISCONSIN, tea partiers have also taken up the fight against the public sector unions. Chris Littleton and the Ohio Liberty Council (OLC), a coalition of nearly 60 Tea Parties in Ohio, flexed a little muscle to encourage passage of Ohio senate bill SB-5, which abolishes state collective bargaining rights. Littleton and the OLC are now working to attach four amendments to the House version that deal with right to work, designation of dues, paycheck protection, and limiting the number of accrued sick days for union members.
While hardly as well funded as the public sector unions, the tea partiers have an advantage in the long run should American taxpayers, as a whole, follow their lead. Why? Because tea partiers are the first responders, the early adopters, of a very significant percentage of the American population. The tea partiers, in the end, are fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer, and are really the tip of the spear. Consider that we have roughly 310 million people in our nation. Of those, an estimated 130 million are wage earners, of which 53 percent, or 69 million, pay federal income taxes. Of those 130 million, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 11.9 percent are unionized, or some 15 million. Of those, 7.6 million are public sector employees.
Polk writes in Violent Politics that the fight is won if the majority of the population begins to accept and see the world the way the insurgents do. The war of the flea will end if insurgents win backing by numbers far more significant than the forces they face. If the tea partiers can help awaken the American taxpayer to the reality of the unions, the fight will become one of 54 million nonunion taxpayers vs. 15 million union members. Currently we are nearing the tipping point of this struggle.
About the Author
Ned Ryun is the founder and president of American Majority, a political training institution. His “With the Tea Partiers” column run each month in the The American Spectator’s print edition. You can follow him on Twitter @nedryun.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ned Ryun
More Articles From With the Tea Partiers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/04/the-war-of-the-flea
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael Tomlinson| 5.4.11 @ 6:46AM
It seems the time has come for real campaign finance reform that bars labor unions from using member's dues money to finance political campaigns (the individual members have the freedom to donate or not to as they choose). This along with maintaining the democratic principle of the secret ballot in union organizing and/or elections would greatly reform what has become a corrupt apparatus of the Democrat party.
As for government employee unions civil service reform should be enacted that bans government unions (not the individual union members) from involvement in politics. If it is good enough for the men and women who defend America to institutionally stay out of politics it is good enough for government bureaucrats.
JimmyMac| 5.4.11 @ 7:33AM
Amen!
Mike D.| 5.4.11 @ 8:08AM
While unions and their thugs can organize, the fact remains that unions and union membership is dying a slow death and are a small minority of people in this country. In reality the Tea Party far outnumbers Unions in votes. The day of the union is over and they know it. Their was a place and time for unions and a place and time for horses and wagons and they both passed into history. So stand back and watch the dinosaurs pass into histories garbage can one by one, its historical and entertaining.
David W| 5.4.11 @ 8:30AM
But don't forget that the unions have the entire backing of the official Democratic party. They also, for the time being, have the support of the liberal establishment - which not only includes entertainers and other "famous" people, but a number of judges who will common sense and existing laws to rule in the unions' favor. They also have to either be won over or will have to be removed from their positions of authority.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.4.11 @ 9:34AM
Good news in Massachusetts the Democrats pulled a Scott Walker – proves how right he was.
SpiralArchitect| 5.4.11 @ 1:34PM
End all Lobby action as well - IMO.
Kishego| 5.4.11 @ 2:42PM
Isn't that the funniest thing. I love it. Not a peep in the MSM though (typical).
Albert| 5.4.11 @ 3:27PM
Just a thought. Government employee unions should not just be banned from politics, they should be banned altogether. It is a conflict of interest to have government employees unionized. They become labor AND management at the same time, voting to spend other people's money on themselves. (Government employees do not "pay" taxes. They are paid out of taxes. That some of that money is witheld as "taxes" is just fuzzy bookeeping as the money makes a u-turn back to the government. But no wealth is added to the treasury by taxing government employees. All such wealth comes from the private sector.) The SEIU is institutionalized corruption and the rest of us pay for them to oppress us with higher taxes and stifling regulations. Screw 'em. Ban government emnployee unions at all levels.
Cosmo| 5.5.11 @ 1:46AM
Well done, Albert...
Laurie| 5.13.11 @ 10:04AM
All "donations" by Unions to a political party or candidate should be banned. It's a conflict of interest, not to mention an ethical conflict using hard-working people's money to enable a 'special interest'. Greed & corruption are direct by-products of this fraudulent practice.
Clint| 5.4.11 @ 8:26AM
We Tea Party Patriots are changing the dynamics of Electoral Politics and tearing down The Big Government Ruling Elite Paymasters' control of America.
Rise Up !
Walk The Talk.
Carpe Diem.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Louis Jenkins| 5.4.11 @ 8:51AM
Don't you just love the way the Tea Party works. Recall of three sitting Democrat senators. Let's hope they get the alottment of signatures necessary. If I were in that state I certainly would sign on the line. Go get 'em!
PolishKnight| 5.4.11 @ 10:06AM
I chuckle at some of leftism's slogans including they're the "party of inclusion".
The whole strategy of the left has been to create government entitled special interest groups that vote and contribute to the cause of big government (controlled by them with little opposition from RINOs) and a minority, in the classic sense, of people who are second class citizens to pay the taxes and work in lower paid jobs to keep the whole pyramid scheme going.
This is nothing new. In the former USSR, you had to be a communist party member to get the best government jobs. That's largely the way that the Democrats try to work it. One of them even blurted out in a blog that they were careful to not hire "racists" at his government job. "Racist" was code for political dissident.
In the end, the party of "inclusion" reserves the right to control the numbers of those "excluded" and has purges and confiscates what's left of the "privileged" peoples' property.
They're gangsters in the literal sense of the word.
SpiralArchitect| 5.4.11 @ 1:36PM
Slightly off on the understanding of the meaning.
The party of inclusion - be with us or you are (nothing) against us is more to the root of the phrase.
Petronius| 5.4.11 @ 10:25AM
There is one thing the TeaParty will never overcome: the attitude of a cohort of malcontents who believe that the world not only owes them a living, but satisfaction without any obligation on their part.
Kathy| 5.4.11 @ 10:52AM
People that belong to unions better take a good look at where their union dues are going! I belonged to 1199C, and then read, that they were having rallies to support Mumia Abu Jamal....a convited cop killer. I went up to HR and told them that I didn't want union dues witheld from my paycheck. They said that I could not work there if dues were not withheld. (I don't work in a right-to-work state.)
I was terminated two weeks later.
I am presently active in the Tea Party movment.
Albert| 5.4.11 @ 3:32PM
At one time it was legal under Federal Law to have all political uses of one's union dues excluded. If one requested it in writing, one's dues would be reduced to the amount calculated for collective bargaining only, and any extra used for politics would not be charged to the employee. I'm not sure what happened since then. After 8 years of Clinton, and with Bush giving the issue little attention, it may have been "executive ordered" into extinction. As for being terminated for asking such a question, sounds to me like you should seek the advice of a lawyer.
Roy| 5.4.11 @ 11:26AM
Your math doesnt add up. In the first paragraph you state that $500 million was spent by unions on campaign contributions, you then claim 95% went to democrats. The numbers you provided - $40,281,900 to democrats and $547,700 to republicans doesnt add up to even 10% of $500 million.
SpiralArchitect| 5.4.11 @ 1:38PM
You are using one source ( AFSCME ) as the standard for the 95% of all donations - from all groups (unions).
russel| 5.4.11 @ 11:43AM
We are a right-to-work state , which effectively squashes most union influences , but this article is about government unions , which thanks to JFK , have no real check and balance system . Try to fire a gov. employee , it's practically impossible . My favorite , the NEA and their state sisters , have control over our children and their sensitive little minds . If we can stop them and regain the schools , a very large chunk of the socialist boulder will be chipped off .
Cosmo| 5.5.11 @ 1:50AM
Yes, government schools are unconstitutional.
Get rid of the NEA and most of our states' budget problems would be solved.
carol| 5.4.11 @ 11:54AM
The one who is waking up is the journalist like this one who is getting to know who we are. we are smart we are conservative we are business hard working Americans who have gotten off the couch and will put our pennies dollars hundreds of dollars where our mouth is when there is a candidate who is going to fight this battle with us.
I have been a California conservative 9/12 member since 2009 My Liberty San Mateo
Patrick| 5.5.11 @ 5:23AM
Leave while you can. Wisconsin looks nice btw.
Oldefarte| 5.4.11 @ 3:14PM
Ned's article is terrific! The labor unions [both private and public] have been and will conitnue to ruin this country economically. Although they were needed to counter the Industrial Revolution's excesses, their usefullness has outlived itself, and their excessive wage increment above the market forces of supply and demand is detrimental and expensive [and we simply cannot afford same]!!!!!!!
Redstateboy| 5.4.11 @ 4:27PM
You know when ya think about it. The Unions were there own worst enemy in Wisconsin. I like to think I'm an educated, reasonably well informed conservative and it really didn't dawn on me until all this transpired of this incestious relationship between the Unions and the Slave Party (aka Democrat Party) and I think it woke up a lot of people around the country. When you think about... Taxpayers - Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Independents - whatever - pay their taxes. This money inturn goes to pay the Salaries and Benefits of Public sector union employees. The States automatically deducts their their union dues, forward them on to the unions, the unions then spend the money electing more Slave Party candidates - and they use everyones money for this?!!!?! I'm glad the unions forced this debate. Let me get in front of some union person and have them justify this BS to me...
Sean| 5.4.11 @ 5:12PM
Mike wrote. "While unions and their thugs can organize........"
I have to belong to a Union, and I am what is called a "fee payor" meaning that the Union gets my dues, except for what would have been spent for political purposes, roughly 35%. I work for the agency in California charged with investigating and disciplining lawyers. Every year, going on 12 years now, I investigate over 100 cases involving theft, embezzlement, failing to perform etc. There is nobody else in California that does this. By your logic and many others on this site and other conservative sites, I am a thug and a parasite. Tell me, what happens to the clients of lawyers who are victimized if you and your friends' wet dream comes true and my agency and our Union goes away? C'mon, you've got all the answers, what will you say to them?
This "thug" would like to know.
Paul McGrath| 5.4.11 @ 5:41PM
Sean,
This is a common misunderstanding. Nobody is saying that YOU are a parasite. We are saying that your union is a parasite. And how is it that your agency depends on the union for its existence? The state and its citizenry funds and supervises your agency. Your agency does not need a union to exist. Please, why in the world do you think it does?
Paul McGrath| 5.4.11 @ 5:44PM
Sean,
I reread your statement because I still can't believe it. Do you really think that your agency is dependent upon a union for its existence? Do you think that your agency would not exist without a union? What am I missing?
Sean| 5.4.11 @ 6:31PM
To label people who belong to unions as thugs and parasites is unfair and I am tired of being labeled that way. This is the fourth year that Investiagtors and Prosecutors have worked without aise of any kind. We do it because we believe the public needs our protection. It would be nice if we had a choice to belong to a Union, but, we don't. Frankly, I hate my Union. But, the common devil these days are "public sector employees." The constant comparison of public vs. private salaries is in my case, b.s., I'd make more money working for a law firm or insurance company. I'm willing to trade having the chance every day to do good for a lowered salary. Every day, I get second guessed by defense lawyers, politicians and more recently, talk show hosts who have no clue what my job involves. I'm just another "public sector union employee." With inflation and increases in my health insurance, I've been taking a pay cut for the last four years and I'm sick of morons calling me a parasite and a thug. Could my agency exist without a union, yeah, probably, would you like to have a lawyer take everything you own and have no recourse because the agency employees have been outsourced and tell you on the phone-when you can get them-to fill out the form on the web site and they'll get back to you?
Don't be an idiot like Sean Hannity and label people you don't know, thugs.
Dagny Taggert| 5.5.11 @ 11:57AM
You should be paid a base salary and then a commission based on the embezzled money you return to the state/victims. No union, and integrate a little meritocracy. You'll make more money if you're good, and the public will have a more dilligent watchdog.
scythe| 5.4.11 @ 7:24PM
It's time for a class action lawsuit on behalf of the taxpaying public. No union dues should be given to anyone running for public office. Our money is being used to purchase POLITICAL SPEECH which we do not support. All money in politics purchases political speech and advertisement which is the same thing. It's just another one of the reasons why public employee unions are unconstitutional. If individual members VOLUNTARILY give their money, fine. But to conscript "dues" which are PAID FOR BY TAX DOLLARS to support political ideas which are rejected by the majority is a grotesque violation of our constitution.
Nite| 5.4.11 @ 10:49PM
I retired from a Right to Work State. I worked for a municipal government for nearly 15 years. Everyone paid into their own retirement and for health benefits. I previously worked for a state that paid for retirement. Salaries were lower in that state. Go figure.
nax777 | 5.5.11 @ 6:04AM
I am just blindly tossing seeds.
Protect your right for self-persuasion. Only those with a strong will to maintain numbers and a defensive army will prosper. The two party system is of one breed, greed. Acquired power by taking and enough people gladly granted for payments or sainthoods.
There are three Organizations that each physically focuses on one the top three cancers that are destroying the American culture. Your physical presents, like all things are needed in order to move mountains. We need to stand together and turn Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness into a laser beams.
The more people that engage in distraction the easier it is for the focused. Go to reformdc.com or some blogs allow you to click on my name. Explore only the top three banners. No one is making any money when you do this.
TeaPartyWarrior| 5.5.11 @ 7:46AM
Wisconsin must become a right-to-work state.
Simon Dogood | 5.5.11 @ 2:16PM
It seems to me that the public sector employees are the problem, not the solution. We the people hire them to do necessary tasks. But everything they do , almost by definition, limits our freedoms. The bureaucrats, who have multiplied like a cancer, exist for no other reason than to implement governmental controls of one type or another. My question is: since they work for us, the tax paying "We The People," why are they allowed unionize or to vote at all? They now have become numerous enough to vote themselves into unassailable positions of power and ne'er reversible raises. The servants have become the masters. The other side of that coin, unfortunately, is that "we the people" have become so decadent that we no longer have any responsibility for ourselves. We have declined into every sort of depravity and avarice so that, rather than knowing right from wrong and shunning wrong, we have bought into the liberal mantra of "I gotta be me" and, If it feels good, do it." Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. I guess we're getting what we deserve for taking prayer out of the schools in 1960.