Bargaining Rights

First Wisconson, now Ohio. Who’s next? 

As Republicans in some states continue to strip away the collective bargaining rights of unions, according to the USA Today, the majority of Americans strongly oppose these measures. 

According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll, 61 percent of Americans would oppose a law that would take away the bargaining rights of public employees.  33 percent favor it.

 

And if you talk to cops and firefighters in states where these rights are on the chopping block, like in Ohio, it's easy to see why.

According to an article by the Associated Press, "police and firefighters won’t be able to bargain with cities over the number of people required to be on duty. That means they can’t negotiate the number of staff in fire trucks or police cars, for instance."  

Obviously the police and firefighters might be concerned about how many people ride in a squad car with them or run into a burning building with them, it's not just their jobs, but their lives.  

But we should be concerned too.  After all, it's us they are running in for.

It might be easy for some in the private sector to bash teachers, who have things like pensions and health benefits, because the corporations have slowly done away with this kind of thing.

But again, it's our kids, and their brains, that teachers are in charge of every day, eight hours a day.

Perhaps when we try to squeeze a buck from here or there, we should start from the top.  In fact, some estimates claim we could have saved almost a a trillion dollars by eliminated the Bush tax cuts, but that's old news.  

Now all we should do is ask, "are teachers, firefighters and cops really the kind of people we should be holding upside down and shaking for every last dime?" 

The Libyan Situation

On March 18, the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action and a no-flight zone in Libya. Barack Obama launched a “limited military action” one day after the U.N.’s decision.

Obama’s plan was to use tomahawk missiles to knock out Libyan radar and communication centers around Tripoli, as well as Misurata and Surt. As of March 21, Obama has committed five combat ships, including one equipped with guided missiles, three submarines with tomahawk missiles and 42 F-16 fighter jets.

Normally one would think that Obama needs permission from Congress to engage in war, but a “limited military action” does fall under the presidential powers. If the military action continues then the president must consult Congress before continuing, even if the target is a Looney Tune of a dictator like Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Ousting Qaddafi might not be the best move for Libya. State Rep. Robert Castelli (R-NY) believes the potential replacements are just as bad as Qaddafi. “Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was particularly unhappy with Obama’s decision stating the military action “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

Former Reagan Spokesman Mark Weinberg described Obama’s move as a rookie mistake. “Not one we should expect from an administration more than 2 years old -- especially one headed by a former U.S. senator.”

Obama plans to hand off control of the operations to European allies soon, but no such takeover has taken place yet. This marks the third Muslim country in the last decade that has seen U.S. military intervention, two under a Republican president and one under a Democrat president.

If the Libyan situation escalates, it will vindicate Former President George W. Bush because Obama’s reasons for attack are the same as Bush’s in 2003.

Saddam Hussein ordered the deaths of 300,000 to 500,000 people during his regime. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s death toll is estimated between 200 and 1,000 people since the start of the uprising in late February. According to the Energy Information Administration, Iraq had known oil reserves of 115 billion barrels of oil in 2001. According to the EIA, Libya holds 46.4 billion barrels of oil, the largest reserve in Africa. Iraq had an estimated population of 25,175,000 in 2003. Libya’s population is just a fifth of Iraq’s.

Both countries have oil and both countries were run by unstable dictators who killed their own people. Sure, it’s not proven that either country has weapons of mass destruction, but how is Obama’s reasoning any different from Bush’s reasoning?

Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2002 and in 2007 promised to bring home troops within 16 months. It’s 2011, we still have about 47,000 troops in Iraq and Obama is engaging in a tickle fight with Libya over small potatoes.

Why waste precious U.S. resources on a country like Libya when we have two other wars to fight with more to gain?