Showing posts with label Williamson County Commissioner's Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Williamson County Commissioner's Court. Show all posts
Friday, January 21, 2011
Breaking News: Judge Dismisses Wilco Attorney's Lawsuit
Just in: Apparently Bell County Judge Rick Morris has dismissed Williamson County Attorney Jana Duty's lawsuit demanding removal of County Judge Dan Gattis. Austin American-Statesman story here.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Public Sector 'Union-Lite" in Wilco
Who does Royger Harris of the Williamson County Attorney's office think he's kidding?
At Tuesday's Williamson County Commissioner's Court, Harris, who works for Jana Duty in the County Attorney's office, demanded that the county approve payroll deductions for his newly formed Williamson County Employees Association, and when we say newly-formed, we mean 6 days old, since Harris only filed his paperwork on June 24. The Court tabled Harris' request until he can produce some basic information, such as WCEA bylaws and board members; a request Harris seems to think improper.
The County has prudently allowed very few organizations payroll deduction privileges, and the United Way (founded in 1887) was the last group approved, some four years ago.
So what is Harris' agenda? Only after much prodding, Harris got to the heart of the issue: some county employees are upset that they won't be getting raises this year while health insurance premiums are increasing.
Apparently Harris has not noticed that the entire nation is having a little economic trouble. The unemployment rate is at nearly 10%, and many still employed in the private sector have received pay cuts. (My own household took a cut of 25%) And guess what? ALL of us will be paying higher insurance premiums and taxes next year thanks to Obamacare and out-of-control federal spending.
We have seen the formation of many new public sector employee 'associations' in recent years; These groups are not unions per se and do not have the same powers and capabilities as established unions, but their stated goals are nearly identical, rendering these associations a kind of 'union-lite.'
Clearly the goal of Mr. Harris and company is to force the County Commissioners off the path of fiscal responsibility they have taken. Like most liberal/progressives, Harris cares little about the budget and reduced revenues for the county, and only wants to make sure government employees don't have to feel the effects of our troubled economy. This approach will only lead to higher taxes for residents and business, and further burden a productive private sector.
At Tuesday's Williamson County Commissioner's Court, Harris, who works for Jana Duty in the County Attorney's office, demanded that the county approve payroll deductions for his newly formed Williamson County Employees Association, and when we say newly-formed, we mean 6 days old, since Harris only filed his paperwork on June 24. The Court tabled Harris' request until he can produce some basic information, such as WCEA bylaws and board members; a request Harris seems to think improper.
The County has prudently allowed very few organizations payroll deduction privileges, and the United Way (founded in 1887) was the last group approved, some four years ago.
So what is Harris' agenda? Only after much prodding, Harris got to the heart of the issue: some county employees are upset that they won't be getting raises this year while health insurance premiums are increasing.
Apparently Harris has not noticed that the entire nation is having a little economic trouble. The unemployment rate is at nearly 10%, and many still employed in the private sector have received pay cuts. (My own household took a cut of 25%) And guess what? ALL of us will be paying higher insurance premiums and taxes next year thanks to Obamacare and out-of-control federal spending.
We have seen the formation of many new public sector employee 'associations' in recent years; These groups are not unions per se and do not have the same powers and capabilities as established unions, but their stated goals are nearly identical, rendering these associations a kind of 'union-lite.'
Clearly the goal of Mr. Harris and company is to force the County Commissioners off the path of fiscal responsibility they have taken. Like most liberal/progressives, Harris cares little about the budget and reduced revenues for the county, and only wants to make sure government employees don't have to feel the effects of our troubled economy. This approach will only lead to higher taxes for residents and business, and further burden a productive private sector.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tea Parties are Pro-Government, Constitutional Government, That Is...
In an editorial regarding the Williamson County Commissioner Court's allocation of $300,000 for social services, the editor of the Round Rock Leader newspaper took a swipe at the Tea Party movement. The editor's point, that some government programs can do good, is well-taken. Government can indeed help provide for the indigent. However, the editorial characterizes the Tea Parties and The Right as 'anti-government,' and concludes with this statement,
Seriously? Have you so completely misunderstood the Tea Parties?
First of all, the Tea Party groups are pretty diverse; they include Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, black, white, brown, gay, straight, etc., ad nauseam. Secondly, I have yet to meet any anarchists among the Tea Party activists, and I challenge the implication that the Tea Parties are anti-government per se. As for radicalism, despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, the rallies have been peaceful demonstrations attended by all ages and all walks of life.
The Tea Party movement was launched by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli's 2009 comments regarding government (taxpayer) bailout of a system crippled by misguided federal attempts to artificially engineer society. Santelli recognized that more government interference would only exacerbate the issues we face and reward those who abused the system.
We do not oppose assistance for the truly poor; in fact according the studies done by professor Arthur C. Brooks, the politically Conservative give 30% more to charity than the politically liberal, and donate more time, effort, and even more blood than their liberal counterparts. We believe we can assist the needy, even through some government programs, but recognize the fact that economically free societies have fewer poor, and our poor have a higher standard of living than the Middle Class in socialist countries. Furthermore, there are solutions that do not require destroying the entire system.
The Tea Party motivation is not to foment change a la 60's radicalism, but to prevent the radicals from destroying the American constitutional form of government. Just because these groups oppose Obama-style socialism, does not mean they are anti-government; they favor a limited government that walks the line between providing order and security without controlling every aspect of our lives. The irony of the Leader statement, is that it is precisely those 60's radicals are now in charge and now attacking "how good" we've "got it."
Tea Partiers DO know how good they've had it, and they are fighting those who, like President Obama, think the U.S. Constitution is an obstacle to "major redistributive change." No Mr. Editor, we are not anti-government, we are pro-Constitution.
More tea, less government please.
"You tea partiers - you're like the 1960s radicals - you don't know how good you've got it here."
Seriously? Have you so completely misunderstood the Tea Parties?
First of all, the Tea Party groups are pretty diverse; they include Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, black, white, brown, gay, straight, etc., ad nauseam. Secondly, I have yet to meet any anarchists among the Tea Party activists, and I challenge the implication that the Tea Parties are anti-government per se. As for radicalism, despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, the rallies have been peaceful demonstrations attended by all ages and all walks of life.
The Tea Party movement was launched by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli's 2009 comments regarding government (taxpayer) bailout of a system crippled by misguided federal attempts to artificially engineer society. Santelli recognized that more government interference would only exacerbate the issues we face and reward those who abused the system.
We do not oppose assistance for the truly poor; in fact according the studies done by professor Arthur C. Brooks, the politically Conservative give 30% more to charity than the politically liberal, and donate more time, effort, and even more blood than their liberal counterparts. We believe we can assist the needy, even through some government programs, but recognize the fact that economically free societies have fewer poor, and our poor have a higher standard of living than the Middle Class in socialist countries. Furthermore, there are solutions that do not require destroying the entire system.
The Tea Party motivation is not to foment change a la 60's radicalism, but to prevent the radicals from destroying the American constitutional form of government. Just because these groups oppose Obama-style socialism, does not mean they are anti-government; they favor a limited government that walks the line between providing order and security without controlling every aspect of our lives. The irony of the Leader statement, is that it is precisely those 60's radicals are now in charge and now attacking "how good" we've "got it."
Tea Partiers DO know how good they've had it, and they are fighting those who, like President Obama, think the U.S. Constitution is an obstacle to "major redistributive change." No Mr. Editor, we are not anti-government, we are pro-Constitution.
More tea, less government please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)