There is verse in the Bible that tells the tale for a lot of people. It basically says “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh”. In other words, no matter how a person tries to hide how they really feel about a particular situation, it will slip out, sooner or later. Shortly after the Wisconsin protests began and the Wisconsin Senate Democrats went into hiding,
President Obama made it very clear where he stood on an issue that should have been classified as a state issue. He called Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s plan to help balance his state’s budget an assault on unions. Organizing For America, his organization of community organizers, also sent logistical help to the state and actually bused in some of the protestors. Since then, he has backed off of the rhetoric to some degree, but on Monday, February 28, he opened up with another salvo of words, aimed directly at Governor Walker and the Republican Party in Wisconsin. Here is a portion of what he had to say. Both sets of quotes are from a transcript of the speech, courtesy of Shallow Nation. The emphasis added is mine.
So I believe that everybody should be prepared to give up something in order to solve our budget challenges, and I think most public servants agree with that. Democrats and Republicans agree with that. In fact, many public employees in your respective states have already agreed to cuts.
But let me also say this: I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon. We need to attract the best and the brightest to public service. These times demand it. We’re not going to attract the best teachers for our kids, for example, if they only make a fraction of what other professionals make. We’re not going to convince the bravest Americans to put their lives on the line as police officers or firefighters if we don’t properly reward that bravery.
As is the case so much of the time, President Obama seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says everyone needs to make sacrifices in these hard times, yet he accuses the state of Wisconsin of “denigrating, vilifying, or infringing” upon the rights of the states workers. Why is it that he insists that making these sacrifices is akin to giving up someone’s rights? Could it be that he has an ulterior motive, one that would include shedding as good a light on the unions as possible? Remember, we are headed towards 2012 and he would be helped immeasurably if Governor Walker’s plan was defeated and the unions could claim a victory.
In case you are wondering, the portion of the speech about public employees wasn’t the only part I found to be telling. It’s no secret that President Obama despises the fact that tax cuts were extended for some wealthy Americans. He let that little tidbit slip again during the speech.
So, yes, we need a conversation about pensions and Medicare and Medicaid and other promises that we’ve made as a nation. And those will be tough conversations, but necessary conservations. As we make these decisions about our budget going forward, though, I believe that everyone should be at the table and that the concept of shared sacrifice should prevail. If all the pain is borne by only one group — whether it’s workers, or seniors, or the poor — while the wealthiest among us get to keep or get more tax breaks, we’re not doing the right thing. I think that’s something that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on.
Once again, I believe the President is guilty of playing class warfare. He seems to be at his best when he is playing the downtrodden and cast down against those who have made something of themselves in America and that is exactly what he is doing here. He would like to convince the electorate that those who are poorer are so because of those who are wealthy. He is smart, the fellow who lives in the White House, and he knows exactly what he is doing. I have no doubt that he would like nothing better than to stir up those who are having a hard time making ends meet, of which I am one, against the wealthiest Americans. If he is successful, where would they turn, except to the President who has promised them the moon and is willing to spend America into oblivion to make it look like he is delivering the goods. His relationship with the unions is indicative of that desire, I believe. They are a means to an end and that end is winning a second term in 2012.
So, what you’re saying is Unions are bad. And that the rich don’t in any way make other people more poor through their actions. So the bailouts, bank failures, bank scandals, securities frauds, and every other act that caused our economy to tank is no one’s fault? But it’s okay because the rich people survived and didn’t get foreclosed on. Sure some of them lost their jobs, but they had that million-dollar parachute to help them land on their feet.
As regards you tag line, you have definitely impressed upon me what direction our country is headed: towards Crazy, full-steam ahead.
As you can see, I did not delete your comment. You will find I do not shy away from a discussion, even if you do not agree with my viewpoints.
No, I am not saying unions are completely bad. They have served a purpose and may still do so in certain situations. However, the tactics they are pulling in Wisconsin are shameful. They are distorting the facts of what is really taking place.
I also did not say the shape of our economy is no one’s fault. No doubt, there is plenty of blame to go around, but as Teresa has already pointed out, all of that blame does not lie at the feet of the corporations or wealth Americans. Pure and simple, President Obama is practicing class warfare and he should refrain from doing so.
Love the pic! What Obama’s saying is that unions shouldn’t have to share in the sacrifice. The man is practicing class warfare to win a second term. But, most people are not buying into his rhetoric. Yes indeed, Obama is playing and encouraging class warfare. Are the American people paying for all of his concerts and trips? If so, we should demand our money back. @FenrirIII Did you know what caused the bank failures? The Community Reinvestment Act and treating GSE’s differently in the market, with them failing but getting bailed out by the government because they were created by the government and couldn’t possibly be shown to fail. This started with LBJ, then expanded under Carter, and was expanded even more under Clinton. Did you know that ACORN threatened bank managers and their families who wanted to make responsible loans? I am not saying that it was all the Democrats fault but the blame lies largely with them. I am conflicted on the bailouts since I am not sure whether the economy would have been worse or not. Do you honestly think the top 5 percent of wage earners paying 50 percent of the income taxes is “fair”? Plus, the fact that Obama wants to add new taxes to them and small business owners who earn over $250,000? How is penalizing success supposed to encourage job growth?
It’s easy to stand back and throw the blame at those who are already paying more than their fair share of the taxes in this country. The have-nots usually find it easy to get riled up against those who have more than they do. I hope people can wake and realize what is happening and the direction President Obama wants to take our country.
You are exactly right with your comment about the Community Reinvestment Act and ACORN. Both played a large part in the housing bubble that burst and took our economy into the tank.
Well written, Larry. I think you’ve spelled this out pretty well and relating the class warfare angle is accurate. It is another preliminary campaign stump for him, essentially rallying the support before he gets going. I have some serious concerns going into the 2012 election based on what we’re seeing in Wisconsin and throughout the country with the union uprisings… I think that this heightened level of emotions from the unions will continue to gain rhetoric and aggressive fervor around the October/November time in ’12.
I think it will be a combination of the need for them to press issues FOR President Obama so that Obama is clear of accusations of rhetoric as well as an internal decision to disrupt the election process. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an increase in violence coming from the unions either. Obviously we have seen it in the past, and with a likely sense of empowerment through the cover provided by the President, and DOJ for that matter, there very well likely will be a lot more agitators in the crowd. The continued permeation of socialist groups into the pro-union protests will have an impact on the overall mood of the unions as well. These socialist groups are pros at getting organized civil disruption started and they will do it for their own agendas more than those of the unions because it will open the doors for them to reposition and gain strength.
Combine those concerns with the voices of class warfare coming from the top and you can begin to see the “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy coming to fruition before our very eyes. If all they need to do is set up two guys in paramilitary uniforms with a batton outside of polling places on election day, we may wind up having greater problems in 2012 than we thought… especially considering that the DOJ and Eric Holder REALLY don’t want to address the Black Panther case now.
I am glad you brought up the violence that the unions are guilty of. So much of the time, we hear how people are afraid of the Tea Party, that they may become violent, when nothing could be further from the truth. Yet when it comes to the unions, many people are unwilling to admit how they have used violence to achieve their goals. It is amazing to me that they can accuse the Tea Party of things they are not even close to being guilty of, yet ignore the methods of intimidation used by the Black Panthers and groups of their ilk.
I am concerned about the upcoming election cycle as well. Looking at how the Wisconsin situation is unfolding, I will not be surprised to see it grow across the country and get even worse as the election draws closer.
Good comment, Eric.
Class warfare, is his primary weapon. Ironically, he doesn’t give a damn about public employees or unions. He does what he dose for votes. The country be damned.
I really wish I could find grounds to disagree with you, Jim. Unfortunately, I can not.
Excellent graphic and essay! I’ll be linking to this for the weekend.
Thanks, AOW. I appreciate that.
Great post Larry! Barack Obama is the master of doublespeak: on one hand he says we all must sacrifice and then he turns around and bashes those that think the unions must also sacrifice. He is engaged in class warfare–as he was in 2008–and it worked for him then, so he is going to try it again. He says there are no “red states” and no “blue states” he promises to unite us even as he is playing one class against another (again with the doublespeak.)
He certainly is, Steve. Something else he is good at is demonizing those who are wealthy, even though he can be counted among them. Comments like calling them “fat cats” and how he continues harping on how the wealthiest Americans need to pay more, even though they already pay more than their share of taxes, makes me wonder just how far he is willing to go with this.
He can’t help himself Larry. He is what he is; a socialism embracing community agitator.
I am seeing that more and more, John. Thanks for the comment and sorry it was caught in moderation.
Class warfare is at the core of this argument. Unions should serve a purpose…to keep employers “honest.” However, as it has happened in so many situations, the balance is towards the unions, and many employers have either left the country, or have closed their doors.
What you say about the unions is true, Matt. It makes me wonder why they seemingly do not care what happens to the companies that provide the jobs we so desperately need in this country. I don’t think they really care, as long as they get what they want.
Class warfare is how he organizes. It’s the only way to put Rules for Radicals to work. Agitate, agitate. He does it effortlessly. Funny that he can use the word “denigrate” but we cannot. I note that the sacrifice taxpayers have already made for these unions is never mentioned. We’ve done our part, and it has undone us. Good post Larry. You are so right – this is a States issue and the president needs to stay out of it, but he desperately needs those union votes.
He may stay out of it for a while, but I think he will always come back to supporting his union pals. He can not afford not to do so, for as you say, he needs the union votes.
Divide and conquer. He tries to divide society into opposing groups and depict them at war with each other. An effective tactic in the past, but I think may more people have caught onto his game after two years. In just a few sentences he has attacked the successful, the Republicans, and those that can no longer afford to bankroll benefits for others. I’ve said it before: Let him keep talking. 2012 is around the corner.
I hope you are right, rjjrdq. His efforts to put different groups of Americans at each others throats needs to be shown for what it is. I hope people are starting to pay attention.
The “shared sacrifices” lingo disturbs me. If you don’t have a right to something, it is not a scarifice to lose it. There is no “right” to collective bargaining, much as there is no “right” to social services (see my post here from Tuesday).
Side note: I was in Columbus for a rally yesterday, and it was much more subdued than 2 weeks ago. I want to encourage every reader here to affiliate with at least one politically active group and participate in some way. The battle for liberty never ends, but it’s going to get particularly heated over the next decade or so. Blogging like this is an imprtant way of disseminating information and sharing ideas, but nothing tops boots-on-the-ground participation. Trust me, there is nothing quite like an eye-to-eye conversation with a representative to get your point across. I had the pleasure of doing this with my state representative and the top aide to my state senator yesterday.
I have never had the opportunity to speak one on one with any of my representatives, but I wish I could. It seems I am always working when they are within driving distance.
Living in Europe and watching the simple numbers play out, Obama’s appeal to union support is first and foremost not an appeal for union support, but an appeal for public sector union support. The simple actuarial fact is that budget-busting courtesy of impossible-to-meet promises to public sector pensions is breaking the bank faster than any government thought would happen. Thus “kicking the can” down to another year or two is run its course, as one sees in smaller American jursidictions, as in smaller European economies’ woes. Deficit spending only ever meant “adding to the debt” and slashing deficit spending also meant “adding to the debt.” Now as US states and some European nations are learning that they must pay higher rates based on downgraded ratings, the bite is coming long before the liberals thought it would. I suspect deeply that Obama is so focused on his own political survival that he is blind to the coming surprises, as public sector unions learn there is no “more” in response to their cries of “more.” There is no longer even stasis as the economic status quo. Rather, there is an ever increasing burden on governments to screw over the productive to pay the unproductive, and the end result is already becoming very plain to see. Many productive are turning down their productivity, holding off expansions, and cicling their wagons, all the while inner cities’ budgets are imploding. I think the numbers will shortly derail any Obama-led plans, simply because the productive are holding their capital in safety as possible, and walking away from jurisidcitions where a minoroty of government’s non-productive, from welfare queens to “green corporate” welfare queens, because we are seeing bankruptcies in private-public eco-projects as we are seeing emerging scandals of huge government waste. When people who take your moeny and lose it gambling demand “more,” the individual answers multiplied across whole economies is an often temperate “no,” but a no nonetheless. Thus the only growth governments can imagine today comes from adding to debt — a most foolish thing — or grinding down the productive further in order to satisfy what cannot be satisfied, as the cry of “more” will remain unmet. One only need time to watch the slow motion collapse, which is beginning in the smaller jurisdictions. All the astroturf by the public sector unions will not overturn the simple grind of many individual decisions, all of which are amounting to a worldwide though very reserved and quiet “no.”
Margaret Thatcher wrestled with Union “rights” and abuses in 1985 to help bring Britain out of decades of slow growth, crippling debt and high unemployment. Does it sound familiar?
I cite, in a side piece at Robbing America, a brief perspective as she presented the problem for Britain then to draw the amazing parallels with America today