The article mistates Rick Snyders position on Right to Work laws. Snyder has never said he opposed right to work, in fact he has consistantly and publicly said he would sign right to work if the legislature sent it to his desk. Below is a link to a video showing then candidate Snyder saying he would sign a Right to Work bill into law.
The forth video is of Snyder and right to work is the first question.
Surprisingly, it is highly unlikely Michigan could have remained a closed shop union state. Consider Michigan’s national business reputation, a blue collar state dominated by unions and their elected mouthpieces, expensive in terms of taxes, heavily regulated and with a decidedly anti-business climate based on a longstanding cultural legacy. Now you the entrepreneur have firm plans to expand or relocate an existing business. Where on your list of desirable states to invest and establish your business does Michigan place, somewhere near the bottom, at the bottom? And do you think the people of Michigan are unaware of your opinion? They know how the nation and the world views them and they’ll readily complain that all of Michigan isn’t Detroit or Flint or Saginaw.
But changing a cultural perception, in this case a highly accurate one, is very difficult. Something dramatic was needed to change their reputation and they delivered. Money is a powerful incentive, even pride and thick-headed stubbornness fails before the logic of money.
And Michigan’s union workers aren’t thugs. But they are a frightened, bewildered group. Once the realization set in a Korean or a Japanese or a German autoworker could bolt steering wheels on steering columns with the same expertise they claimed to possess, what was the rationale for their inflated hourly wage based on? Charity, maybe? Or perhaps politics? Without new businesses to replace dying industries, the citizens will leave, the exodus is already underway.
The typical union guy is apt to answer unassailable business logic by laying a crowbar upside your head, but that’s fear talking. When the fear subsides, the unions will still be there but the people of Michigan, including the typical union worker, will realize it’s for the best.
"the American Midwest is hopelessly lost to the forces of big government." What a strawman argument. Nobody who has any experience of the Midwest believes this.
Is this another lesson that local is necessary for accountability of politicians?
Federal Congressmen/Senators are like parliamentarians of George III's royal court. Distant, detached from the colonists. Colonists of interest only when needed. At election time when petted to be chosen to remain in their cushy seats in Congress.
It seems the Founding Fathers knew a thing or two about temptations of power in not accoutable to the people over which the power is exercised in their including in the Bill of Rights the Amendments IX and X. If only these amendments were more widely understood.
Well most people in this country might have sold their souls, but when I see a dispute between labor unions and "Americans for Prosperity" or some other shadowy Koch-backed front group for the bosses, I'm pretty sure I know whose side I'm on.
Please do not insult the rest of a state based on a dominate city. In Illinois, the sum of votes for 101 out of 102 counties were a majority for Romney, the outlier that flipped the state from red to blue is of course Cook County. Same is true for Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) in Ohio, Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania, and Miami-Dade County in Florida. In each case, one county over-ruled the rest of the state.
People in Southern Illinois would love to find a way to eject Cook County, or at least Chicago from the state.
You can support unionism or you can support free enterprise, but you cant support both
Let us all hope this will help develop thinking humans who can vote and defeat these union thugs in the future or America will die a slow agonizing death.
I think the question Republicans need to ask themselves is "why are governors so successful in blue states, yet continue to fail on the national level?"
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that state budgets must be balanced... at least in theory. When you vote perks and benefits you pay higher taxes and generally get the same poor service associated with government.
However, when you vote benefits at the federal level you get the benefits and perks and just pass the bill on to the next generation or two to pay the bill.
I honestly think this hurt Romney during the regular election. Were the improving state level dynamics being attributed to the Republican governor's or Obama? I think it's clear that in the general election, there was at least enough confusion on this point that the economic issues were more easily trumped by the social issues that seemed to be such a dominant theme to so many voters despite the desperate fiscal/economic situation we are in.
Republicans are winning on policy in these states. Why are they still losing elections?
I wonder if this is a more libertarian shade than conservative blue?
Asynchronicity? There is yet hope for rationality.