One of the great triumphs of the federal welfare reform legislation passed in the mid-1990s was an insistence…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
To Get More Federal Money, States Claiming Volunteer Organizations are a Form of Welfare Spending

One of the great triumphs of the federal welfare reform legislation passed in the mid-1990s was an insistence that states lay down tough work requirements for welfare recipients as a condition of receiving federal assistance. Though the fact is little publicized, however, another provision of the law allows states to substitute increased welfare spending for the work requirements and still receive money from Washington. That, of course, is an invitation to mischief, as reported by CNSnews, quoting Congressman Geoff Davis

"Many States have scoured their budgets to find other current program spending--such as for Pre-K, child care, and after school programs--they could report as TANF [welfare] spending," Davis said at a hearing on Thursday. "Others began counting third-party spending--such…[more]

May 22, 2012 • 01:24 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Alabama Delivers A Lame Duck Session To Be Proud Of Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, December 30 2010
Ending the practice of automatic paycheck deductions for public employee union dues is an important first step in getting government budgets under control.

Technically, the recently concluded session of the Alabama legislature was not a lame duck session.  Since it was called by term-limited Republican Governor Bob Riley to address specific issues after the regular session ended, it’s known as a “special” session.  Indeed it was. 

Charged with passing the nation’s toughest ethics and campaign finance laws, the outgoing legislators delivered a stunning blow to the state’s public employee unions.  They outlawed automatic payroll deductions for dues from union members’ paychecks.  With the stroke of his pen, Governor Riley touched off what could be a major political issue for other limited government advocates to follow. 

Ethically, the case for ending automatic payroll deductions is straightforward.  People should be given the choice to decide whether they want to fund an organization, even if they belong to it.  Automatically raiding a person’s paycheck without his permission is theft.  The wrong is compounded when the person robbed is pressured to enroll in a union simply because he works for the government.  The combination of compelled membership and coerced dues is a crystalline explanation of how public employee unions became so powerful. 

So why does this kind of behavior persist?  For starters, people rarely stop to look at the money taken away from them by law.  For example, the government is expert at reducing everyone’s paycheck when it deducts for taxes.  That’s why Uncle Sam’s cut for Social Security, Medicare and the income tax are removed prior to a person getting paid.  Though the amounts are clearly provided on every pay stub, many people don’t consider themselves as ever owning the money since it never reached their pockets in the first place.

The same is true with public employee unions.  Taking advantage of their captive members’ tax-funded status, these unions act as if their dues should be treated the same as tax receipts.  Consent is deemed unnecessary.   

To be sure, it’s not like every member would object if given a choice.  The other reason automatic payroll deductions live on is because they are used to browbeat public officials into caving to union demands.  Members aren’t stupid.  If the price of job security and ever-expanding benefits is the loss of paycheck freedom, many will gladly make the trade.  That mentality, coupled with public employee unions’ ability to unilaterally assess an extra dues charge to fund a multi-million dollar campaign, can scare even the toughest-talking politician. 

Consider the cautionary tale of California’s lame duck governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Flush with popular support, Schwarzenegger declared war on the state’s public employee unions in 2005.  His aims were to require public employee unions to get annual written permission before deducting dues from members’ paychecks, and increasing the number of years required for teachers to get tenure protection.  Both measures grew out of the same fiscally conservative strategy to make unions work harder to raise money and embed their members. 

Unfortunately, the two initiatives’ time had not yet come.  Though early polling showed majority voter support, both measures cratered after unions assessed additional paycheck deductions, raising tens of millions of dollars for campaign funds in a matter of weeks.  Of course, they didn’t ask for permission.  They didn’t need to.  But members were shown the self-serving financial benefits of letting other people decide how to spend their money. 

Thanks to a much more fiscally conservative outlook, the Alabama legislature did what a majority of Californians could not.  Ending the practice of automatic paycheck deductions for public employee union dues is an important first step in getting government budgets under control.  With the New Year and new legislative sessions just around the corner, budget cutters across the country have reason to cheer.  Hopefully, as Alabama goes, so does the nation.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following men did the Chicago Tribune describe as: “a bullheaded man whose high place … was won by his ability to waste more money in quicker time on more absurd undertakings?”
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"This week Catholic bishops are heading to federal courts across the country to defend religious liberty. On Monday they filed 12 lawsuits on behalf of a diverse group of 43 Catholic entities that are challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) sterilization, abortifacient and birth-control insurance mandate. ...  The main goal of the mandate is not, as HHS claimed, to protect…[more]
 
 
—Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School Professor
— Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School Professor
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the Obama administration authorize the use of aerial drones by local police agencies?