With all of the union strife in Wisconsin, Indiana and New Jersey, and indications of more to come, it might be time to shed a bit of light on unions as an economic unit.

First, let’s get one important matter out of the way. I value freedom of association, and non-association, even in ways that are not always popular and often deemed despicable. I support a person’s right to be a member or not be a member of a labor union. From my view, the only controversy regarding unions is what should they be permitted and not permitted to do.

According to the Department of Labor, most union members today work for state, local and federal government. Close to 40 percent of public employees are unionized. As such, they represent a powerful political force in elections. If you’re a candidate for governor, mayor or city councilman, you surely want the votes and campaign contributions from public employee unions. In my view, that’s no problem. The problem arises after you win office and sit down to bargain over the pay and working conditions with unions who voted for you.

Given the relationship between politicians and public employee unions, we should not be surprised that public employee wages and benefits often average 45 percent higher than their counterparts in the private sector. Often they receive pension and health care benefits making little or no contribution.

How is it that public employee unions have such a leg up on their private-sector brethren? The answer is not rocket science. Employers in the private sector have a bottom line. If they overcompensate their employees, company profits will sink. The company might even face bankruptcy.

Of course, if private companies can count on federal government bailouts, as did General Motors and Chrysler, they can maintain a comfy relationship with their unions. No such bottom line exists in the government sector. Politicians have every reason to grant benefits to their political allies, in this case public employee unions. They don’t pick up the tab; it’s unorganized taxpayers who face higher taxes.

Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker says that stripping the workers of collective bargaining rights, and limiting talks to the subject of basic wages, is necessary to give the state the flexibility to get its finances in order and spare taxpayers further grief.

Consider the cushy deal for many of California’s unionized state and local police, fire and prison employees. They have what’s called a “3 percent at 50″ formula that determines their retirement check. It’s based on 3 percent of the average of the three highest-paid years of the employee’s career, multiplied by the number of years on the job. An employee with 20 years’ service can retire at age 50 and receive 60 percent of his salary. Employees often boost their retirement income by putting in a lot of overtime hours during their last three years of service.

Temple University professor William Dunkelberg said in his recent CNBC article “Should Unions Have the Power to Tax?”: “The ‘employers’ (taxpayers through their elected officials) have slowly lost their ability to determine the terms of employment offers. The unions now determine working hours, hiring criteria, the quantity of ‘output’ to be produced per day, the number of sick and vacation and holiday days, how their performance will be evaluated etc. No longer can the employer make an ‘offer’ for a job with requirements that fit the needs of the public institution.”

Major states like California, New York, Illinois, Ohio and New Jersey — and the federal government — are on the verge of bankruptcy. Large cities like Los Angeles; Chicago; New York; Washington, D.C.; Newark; and Detroit are facing bankruptcy as well. Does that tell you something? It tells me that we can no longer afford to do what we’ve done in the past. We must make large cuts in spending. Spending on public employee salaries is just a drop in the bucket.

Tell me why you think “Record Profits” are bad? Does the Institution you pay your tuition to become evil somehow because it turns a profit. Is there a dollar amount that defines bad profits from good profits, or are all profits bad? Do you believe that the people with money should give their money to the people who have no money? If you or I continuously give money to someone and expect nothing in return are we helping that person? Would it be more generous to give that person the skills necessary to earn money on their own thus ending their dependency on others?

The Presidents reason to bomb Libya seems to change from moment to moment. Their leader is and always was a despicable human being to say the least. The people of Libya are caught between his tyranny and the militant Islamists seeking to overthrow him. Just a side note, the militant Islamists want to kill you and I just because we do not practice their form of religion. You can believe that no matter which side wins, the Libyan people will still be oppressed, it will just be a matter of oppression by dictator or oppression by religion, either way freedom looses.

Do not be disheartened by “the Media” they are in a business and as such must make that evil money that you seem to detest, so they have to be relevant to keep an audience. . The internet has many good sources for news, personally I feel journalism has been polluted with political slant vs. just reporting the facts.

You seem to be a good person that wants to make a difference and I commend you for that. To try and change the circumstances in the Middle East my friend is an exercise that throughout history has been futile. The Middle east consists of many tribal factions that have been fighting each other for thousands of years. The demographics of the population is something you must understand in order to pass judgment on the situation. We are fooling ourselves when we think that dropping a few bombs can somehow bring closure to a centuries old conflict.

Gaga was, honestly, beyond my expectations, which is surprising because my expectations were already quite high. Every part of the performance was, in some way, art–there wasn’t a moment in which she wasn’t painting something, either with words or with visuals. Her voice is truly amazing live, which is not something she necessarily gets credited for. I would say the best song of the night, for me, would be a tie between Teeth, Paparazzi, and Bad Romance, although the more rock oriented versions of The Fame, Money Honey, and LoveGame were also very impressive.

It’s cheesy (and holy shit this is a long comment) but there were times when I was on the verge of crying during the performance. There is just something so surreal about someone standing on a stage in front of tens of thousands and screaming for gay rights, equality, and acceptance. She is a true political force and she is bringing her views through her music and advocacy to her growing audience–how many other superstars have done that in the way and with the magnitude that she has? She has, without a doubt, changed the lives of gay youth in America.

Good blog. Hopefully you keep it up because I enjoy reading your thoughts.