What’s the link between government employees and the Iowa Republican Caucus?
You’re probably thinking there’s little or no connection. After all, bureaucrats presumably would more likely be interested in the choice on the other side between the two peas in the statist pod, right?
That’s true, but bear with me. To understand the link I’m going to make, start by reading Kevin Williamson’s scathing column posted at National Review. Here are my favorite passages.
Veterans Affairs hospitals had, through their negligence and stupidity, killed more of our servicemen than died during any year of the Iraq war, and then engaged in a massive criminal cover-up. Legislation was introduced to make it easier to fire people for — let’s focus here — killing veterans through their negligence and stupidity. But government employees are the single most important Democratic interest group, and the president and his congressional allies complained that the bill was too harsh on public servants who were killing veterans through their negligence and stupidity. And so the bill died in the Senate… In the Treasury Department, the EPA, and the FCC, employees have been found to routinely spend the equivalent of a full workday every week watching pornography on their office computers. Most of those crank-yanking bureaucrats are still on your payroll. At the Commerce Department, paralegals spent their days shopping online and trolling dating sites because they were assigned no work — their supervisors were afraid giving their employees work would “antagonize the labor union.” …The IRS and the AFT are routinely used as political weapons. …Beyond spending on (overwhelmingly Democratic) political campaigns, government workers and their unions also show up to vote, to knock on doors, and to bully, harass, and threaten nonconformists. They are the backbone of the Democratic party — and they are thieving, lazy, grasping, thieving, dishonest, thieving, pervy, thieving, detestable, despicable, thieving, thieving thieves… We are ruled by criminals.
Wow, I thought I sometimes employed a bit of sarcasm when writing about overpaid scroungers in the bureaucracy. Heck, I even created a Bureaucrat Hall of Fame to mock our paper-pushing overseers. But Kevin doesn’t mince words.
At this point, you’re probably wondering what this has to do with the GOP contest in Iowa.
Well, I think “The Donald” had a great opportunity to exploit this issue. He’s the guy who’s famous for “You’re fired” and he could have used that reputation to argue he would clean house in the federal bureaucracy.
Best of all, he wouldn’t even have to try very hard.
According to Government Executive, a non-trivial number of federal workers would retire or quit if Donald Trump is elected.
One in four federal workers would consider leaving their jobs if Trump were elected president, according to a new survey conducted by the Government Business Council, Government Executive Media Group’s research arm. About 14 percent of respondents said they would definitely consider leaving federal service under President Trump, while an additional 11 percent said they might. The findings indicate those leaving government would come from agencies’ top ranks… Among Democrats, 42 percent said they would consider leaving, while 48 percent would not.
Imagine what would have happened if Trump’s people had run commercials with this information, or handed out copies of the article at the Caucus.
Just think of all the taxpayers who might have been convinced that there was finally a candidate who would get rid of some of the over-compensated dead wood in Washington.
Definitely a missed opportunity for The Donald.
By the way, I should take this opportunity to point out that bureaucrats aren’t necessarily bad people. I realize it’s a trite phrase, but some of my best friends work for the government.
Nor are they all leftists.
The article reports that a majority would have been embarrassed with Trump in the White House, but there was also widespread disdain for Hillary. And Rubio actually did better than either Democrat.
…a majority — about six in 10 — would be “embarrassed” to have him as their boss. About half of respondents said the same of Hillary Clinton, compared to 45 percent for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and 37 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Just one in five said the same of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
I have two additional observations about Iowa.
First, it was great to see that the corrupt and sleazy ethanol industry failed in its all-out effort to defeat Cruz. Hopefully this will be interpreted as a sign that politicians no longer have to kneel at the altar of King Corn.
Second, I find it remarkable that Rubio is now being portrayed as the “establishment” candidate. This is a guy who was part of the Tea Party revolt. A guy who defeated the establishment-endorsed governor to win his Senate seat. A guy who has one of the most pro-market voting records in the Senate. A guy from a state filled with old people who is openly pro-entitlement reform. So if he’s the “establishment,” that’s a major victory.
By the way, the first observation doesn’t mean you should vote for Cruz and the second observation doesn’t mean you should vote for Rubio. I’m simply making two points that should be encouraging for advocates of good policy.
Actually, let me add a third observation. In my prediction yesterday, I guessed Cruz would come in first with 28 percent, and…drum roll, please…he came in first with 28 percent. And I said he would be followed by Trump, Rubio, Carson, Paul, and Bush, all of which was true. And I predicted Hillary would beat Bernie.
Sure, some of my percentages were off, but I’ll take this as a partial victory.