In response to:

The Lost Concept of a Public Servant

johnm h Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 8:36 AM
Federal unions are of little importance as they can’t strike and one does not have to belong to them to work. The problem is that the federal bureaucracies have their own interests, careers, and the bigger they become the less accountable they are and the more harmful they become. They must be pared back and their power restricted. Some are necessary, but even these are for the most part over funded. Over funding and lack of accountability corrupts everything but the political class from both parties are indifferent. The bureaucracies have been given jobs to do that cannot be done so they fail but then try to fix their failures with more funding to do things they can't.
Vic156 Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:51 PM
But they don't have to. Strike that is. and they still imagine themselves our betters.
jrobson Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:09 AM
Sad, but true! The over-funding is the huge spending cliff that is before us now.

This is the second in a series on unions in America.

Public Servant is defined in Webster’s dictionary as a government official or employee. When I was growing up that perception was accepted on a near-universal basis. Christopher Stevens, our deceased Libyan Ambassador, would fulfill that role in most people’s eyes. Certainly members of the military are truly public servants. But because of public employee unions, our former public servants are really at odds with the public.

We have felt that our public employees were against us for a long time as they have used their unionized power to collect...