He doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades to pull off a coup against his primary opponent, but it's still fun to watch the donkeys dance and squirm. You see, there is one Democrat who seems to actually understand that today's unions are an albatross around the neck of America, a feedbag Democrat donkeys have gotten too fat on, and that Amnesty for Illegals is not in the nation's best interests. His name is Mickey Kaus.
As a democrat, "neoliberal" blogger Kaus is running for Barbara Boxer's seat in California, and he's angering many in his party for challenging, not only Boxer, but party orthodoxy and ownership as well.
Perhaps he is the proverbial needle in a haystack...Or, maybe he's just out to get his kneecaps broken. In either case, his common sense on unions and immigration is somewhat refreshing to see coming from a Democrat.
"Never mind the fact that he calls himself a Democrat," said Eric Bauman, vice chairman of the state Democratic Party. "The positions he holds are more in line with the California Republican Party than the California Democratic Party. The guy has notoriety because he rants, but that doesn’t mean we need to oblige his request to get visibility.”
So, while we promise not to make this a habit, if the Democrats don't want to elevate common sense from one of their own, we'll do it for them...if only this one time:
Even though Kaus has annoyed the Left's political establishment with his candidacy, today, he committed the ultimate Democratic sacrilege by taking on the party's owners—today's labor unions.
While his op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times may just get him a visit from the Purple Shirts over at the SEIU, it is well worth the read:
America's lead weight
Unions have benefited the country, but changes in the economy have made mainstream unionism itself an impediment to growth.
Do you have to love labor unions to be a good Democrat? That was the question raised last year by the unpopular bailouts of unionized Detroit automakers. It's been raised again this year by California's budget crisis, created at least in part by generous pensions for unionized public employees. I think the answer is no. It's time for Democrats, even liberal Democrats, to start looking at unions and unionism with deep skepticism. [Emphasis added.]
Eeee gads! To Democrats, Kaus has just committed the ultimate sacrilege, as well as political hari kari in one fell swoop!
As the private economy has faltered, we increasingly have a two-tier economy: If you're an insider, a unionized government employee, you're in good shape. Even if you don't do a very good job, you won't be fired. Even in hard times, Washington will spend billions in stimulus funds so that you don't get laid off. You won't even have to take much of a pay cut. And you can retire like an aristocrat at taxpayer expense. But if you're an outsider, trying to survive in a world of $10-an-hour jobs, competing with immigrant labor, paying for your own healthcare, forced to send your children to lousy public schools run by unfireable teachers and $100,000-a-year bureaucrats — well, good luck to you. But be sure to vote Democratic.
"The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians, pushed by our friends in labor, gradually expanded pay and benefits … while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages that pay ex-workers almost as much as current workers. Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide … but at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact."
That quote is from Willie Brown, a Democratic hero, explaining why the state may go the way of Vallejo and General Motors. Easy for him to say; he's retired. But you won't catch any Democrats who are running for office saying it. They're too dependent on organized labor's money and muscle.
We need nonretired Democrats who tell the unions no. Or else, perhaps after more bankruptcies and bailouts, Republicans will do it for them. [Emphasis added.]
While Kaus has almost no chance of surviving against Babs Boxer, his haranguing the hee-haw folks at the DNC are being heard—even if it is out of mainstream Democrat earshot.
Amnesty isn't going to happen anytime soon. Democrats should stop holding effective border control hostage to a legalization plan they're using to rev up the Latino vote.
Participants in Saturday's pro-amnesty marches are being used by the Democratic party elite, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mickey Kaus charged today.
"There is not going to be an amnesty this year, or next year. The majority of the American people don't want it, for good reason. They want to secure the borders first," he said. "Amnesty before we secure the borders would only encourage yet another wave of illegals and hurt the wages of unskilled Americans (and legal immigrants)."
"But every time Democratic politicians in D.C. need to rev up the Latino vote, they dangle the false promise of an amnesty bill. At some point. Latino voters are going to realize they're being used." [Emphasis added.]
While the Democrats would love to ignore Kaus, the fact that he comes from their side causes them more angst than they'd like to have, particularly if he (predictably) loses the primary against Boxer, then "goes Nader."
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.”Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.
For more news and views on today’s unions, go to LaborUnionReport.com.