New York Times Editorial Misses the Point

Today's New York Times Editorial misses a couple of key points in their discussion of the Wisconsin situation.

"Some union benefits are exorbitant, but no politician was forced to hand them out. Lawmakers are free to end this practice and should, but ending the basic rights of unions is a very different matter."

1) It is not a basic right for public employees to have a union.  Federal employees are, for the most part, not-unionized.  They lack the key power of unions: "federal unions can’t advocate striking or actually go on strike."


2) Just how does the New York Times expect politicians to cut back on exorbitant benefits?  When, by their own admission a couple of lines above, they give a lot of support to one party, the Democrats?  Here in California, former governor Arnie was creamed by public employee unions when he attempted reforms.  Now in fairness, this applies to more than just public employee unions.  Senior citizens will fight long and hard to maintain their Social Security benefits, companies fight for their tax-credits, everybody for their tax cuts, etc.


Somebody needs to step up and tell Americans the unpalatable truth and lead.  Provide cover for wavering politicians in both parties.  That somebody is President Obama.  So far, he has been, IMO, all too weak on the leadership front.  Please, President Obama, lead!  Frankly, I expect that much of the time I will dislike your direction.  But it's better than no direction at all.  Follow up on the recommendations of the Budget Commission.