by John D McGinnisAcross America, freedom is breaking out, yet the Pennsylvania Republican party is committed to more of the same old socialism and same old party-above-freedom mentality. The latest example of this is the endorsement of Tom Corbett for governor of the central Pennsylvania republican caucus. Here's what Tom Corbett's website reports:
"The Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania's Central Caucus met today and voted to support Attorney General Tom Corbett for Governor. The vote occurred after Corbett addressed the Central Caucus members and reiterated his commitment to reduce state spending and cut government waste, improve the economic climate to create jobs and bring openness and accountability to state government."
So let me get this straight. The caucus supports Corbett because he is for reducing government spending, cutting (not eliminating) waste, improving the economic climate to create jobs, and bringing openness and accountability to state government. Corbett is laughably and demonstrably incompetent on all of those items. And I guess the sanctity of human life is not worth a mention.
Reducing spending and cutting waste: What part of his budget as state attorney general has been reduced and what waste has he cut there?
Creating jobs: What does a lifelong lawyer who has spent a majority of his career in the public sector know about creating jobs? The single most powerful action our commonwealth's government could take to improve Pennsylvania's economy is to make this a right-to-work state. No mention at all of that on Corbett's website.
Accountability to state government: Bonus gate is entering its 3rd year with the one case that went to court resulting in a not guilty verdict and the meat of the scandal (Senate Republican misbehavior) is still on the bone.
So he's silent on life, mum on economic freedom, and dragging his feet on bringing government officials to justice. Should it surprise that the Republican party, which is rushing to endorse this guy, is the minority party in the Commonwealth whose motto is "Virtue, Liberty, and Independence"?
Incidentally, Tom Corbett's website has nearly everything you would think would be there including opportunities to endorse him, solicitations for donations to his campaign, press releases, and even a blog. However, there is no statement of his principles nor a program for governing Pennsylvania. Guess that's just a little oversight.
this is a bit off the subject of the main post...
ReplyDeleteat the outset, then, i want to say that i agree that the endorsement of corbett shows the GOP doesnt get it. And I agree that his rhetoric is, well, just that.
however, i have to take issue with one item. how would making PA a right-to-work state be significantly beneficial - let a lone "the single most powerful action... to improve Pennsylvania's economy?"
i know there are some studies to suggest that businesses would prefer to locate in RTW states as opposed to those that are not. But there also are studies to suggest there is little impact. There is a lot that could be done to the tax structure for businesses (and individuals for that matter) that would have a bigger impact on the economic climate.
What's more, I am a bit surprised that the author would suggest RTW laws in a post that complains about (among other things) the establishment's lack of commitment to individual liberty. Again, I agree with that main conclusion, but a RTW statute actually ELIMINATES liberty in that it is yet another government regulation of the employment relationship.
Liberty is liberty. If we want the government not to be regulating our lives, then we cannot suggest that they should do it in ways that further our own causes or goals.
just my two cents....
How does Right to work, which EXPANDS options for workers and employers, reduce liberty?
ReplyDeleteAs to the economic studies, anonymous is correct to point out there is a lot of noise, but I've reached the conclusion (having read many of them and having a Ph.D. in economics) that the empirical studies confirm the theory that liberty is superior economic policy.
Closed shops and mandates that restrict employer options and employee options clearly create barriers to economic improvement anywhere, and Pennsylvania is no exception.
As to disputing my claim that RTW is the single best thing state government can do for economic prospects in PA, I didn't see any mention of anything that is superior to it in that respect. I'm all ears.
John McGinnis
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that liberty is superior economic policy. But that's my point. RTW laws do not actually promote liberty. They eliminate it (or reduce it).
ReplyDeleteThe problem is with your premise that RTW laws "EXPAND" options for workers and employers. What they do is limit options for labor unions. Employers have no more choices under RTW laws than they do now.
Perhaps part of the problem is that there is a lot of misunderstanding as to how RTW laws work. Typically, the RTW statute prohibits employers and unions from having closed shop or agency shop provisions on a collective bargaining agreement. But there is nothing now that mandates such arrangements. If the current state of the law was that closed shops were MANDATED, I would agree that we should eliminate that, as doing so would promote liberty.
However, since the current state of the law is that a closed shop exists only when the employer and union agree to it, placing restrictions on what that employer and union can agree to is, in fact, limiting liberty.
Do not get me wrong, I am not a pro-union guy, and I understand that RTW laws are employer-friendly. However, we are not talking about what laws benefit one side or the other. We are talking instead about what laws increase or decrease choice or liberty.
When the current state of the law is that employer and employee can bargain whatever terms they want into their agreement, and a RTW statute amends that relationship by saying "here is one term you are not allowed to have in your agreement, regardless of whether or not you agree on it," then there is less liberty in the relationship.
You argue that "mandates that restrict employer options and employee options clearly create barriers to economic improvement." Again, I agree, but you have not identified any mandate that restricts such options.