Union is the Answer?

It does not take an advanced degree in economics to understand what role labor unions have played in pulling the prosperity from much of American manufacturing, several states' economies, and various government roles. (teacher's union, etc.)

In the past, the primary role of the union has been to "get more" for its employees in terms of wages, benefits, pension, labor hours, safety, etc. In the wake of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, labor unions were a valued and needed part of the workplace. (Wouldn't my mom be proud that I pulled that reference off the top of my head)

Now, however, many have recognized that unions are no longer needed to protect those original rights and operation procedures for which unions were founded. Due to state and federal government regulations across all industries, we have 'OSHA' guidelines, anti-discrimination, unemployment benefits, etc.

Still, unions play a vital role in many industries to further negotiate many facets of employment and compensation beyond what is legally required. They do so as a group in order to increase leverage against their employer for fear of a strike or 'walkout.'

What if unions could be used for just the opposite scenario?

In an interesting political twist, what if the "National Union of Federal Taxpayers" was created? (NUFT) As in, I've had about 'NUFT' of all these taxes!

If radio talk show hosts are correct, this is the first year where we had less than 50% of the population be a "net tax payer" to the Federal Government. That means that the majority can now vote themselves more and more entitlements without the ability for the minority taxpayer to stop them.

As alluded in earlier posts, I view many of the entitlement programs, essentially, as "ransomes" to be paid to those who cannot or will not work to provide for themselves. Economically speaking, there is a value in having basic food and shelter for everyone. Thus, these should not be considered rights but a valuable alternative to looting or potential chaos stemming from desperation.

As we have also seen, too much of a ransom paid, and there are more and more 'takers'in the system.

Therefore, there is a mathematical way to determine the appropriate amount of handouts or entitlements from the government to deter both chaos and apathy at the same time.

Until the boys in Washington figure that one out on either side of the aisle, I suggest we explore the idea of forming 'NUFT' to negotiate on our behalf.

If teachers can negotiate with the government through unions, then why can't taxpayers? What are they going to do, fire us?

The only difference between this and a regular union is that instead of asking for more from our employer, we are asking for our government to take less from us.

Just as a union should generally understand that a company does have to make some profit, NUFT will understand that the government does need revenue for essential services, military, and an appropriate amount of entitlements. However, get too greedy, and the NUFT kicks in.

Just as the union was designed to protect "the little guy," the little guy is now the American taxpayer.

So, I have no ambition of creating and organizing a union of tens of millions of people. (only 1 organizer I know has the sort of experience to try that sort of sweeping vision) My goal is to offer a comparison of the somwhat helpless feeling many of us now have towards the amount of money we get to keep.

Hell, maybe the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement can use the idea in November to get some bi-partisan support.

Unions have devastated the growth of companies before, maybe it can work for the government too!