And, it’s really an opportunity. But, before I explain that tidbit, let’s get some details on the spending, from the Politico…
Top labor leaders say they expect to spend more than ever on both state and federal contests this year. And if recent elections are any indicator, unions could drop more than $450 million, which they reportedly doled out in the 2008 election.
The union playbook: safeguard Democratic governors’ seats, flip state legislatures and hamstring anti-union ballot initiatives.
Kindly give the article a read, as it appears to be factual.
So, what are we to take from this?
1. The unions are stretched pretty thin this year. They spent millions in 2010 to protect their regressive allies in office, and took a drubbing at the polls. Last year, they spent millions in Wisconsin and Ohio, trying to undo laws, and prompting recall elections. They have to be stretched quite a bit with the constant funding for attacks on Conservatives.
2. As I pointed out in February, unions are losing funds due to right to work, and laws that make union dues voluntary…
For more, kindly take a look at this excerpt from Big Government…
Over the past year, several states – including Wisconsin, Tennessee and Idaho – have passed legislation freeing teachers from the shackles of compulsory union membership.
Now that membership has become voluntary, a growing number of teachers are choosing to quit the union, which is causing hard times for the nation’s largest teachers union.
A new report finds the National Education Association has revised its membership numbers downward – from 3.2 million to just over 3 million.
According to Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency website, the hemorrhaging of members is contributing to the NEA’s $17 million deficit, which may force union leaders to lay off employees and cut aid to state affiliates.
So, they are already stressed by their previous spending, and are even laying off their own workers.
So then, what if it wasn’t several states, but ten, or fifteen, or even twenty? What if they lost 20-30% of their memberships, because they rank and file could CHOOSE whether or not they wanted to be in a union, or pay dues? What could the unions do then? There is where the opportunity lies. But instead, the Stupid Party seems to do the following; they go one at a time, or a few at time, and the others (who might contemplate acting) sit back, wringing their hands nervously, awaiting what will happen with the few that try. Then, the unions are able to focus their maximum force (funds, ads, goons, and the like) on the few. Then, the others either try piecemeal (and get equally mauled), or are scared off entirely. This is what Rommel exploited in North Africa, when he famously told a captured British officer…
“What difference does it make if you have two tanks to my one, when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?”
As I described in my January post, What can Conservatives Learn From Erwin Rommel? We would benefit from hitting the opposition with overwhelming force, from multiple directions. Maybe we can’t be Rommel, but we certainly can be Montgomery, who was a master at the war of attrition.
All it takes is some vision,with a comprehensive, and coordinated plan. States would not have to do the exact same thing, but do what is right, given their own situation. Some might make dues voluntary. Others might pass a Right to Work law. Still others might reform pensions and health care contributions. No matter the exact reform, they need to happen as close together as possible. Even if not every initiative or vote is won, enough will be taken to free more and more workers from the union trap, and at the same time, weaken the union bosses.
Can anyone else see this? If some small blogger can see this, why can’t anyone in the Stupid Party?