Why they aren't fixing the "Fiscal Cliff"

Because they don't want to.

Specifically:

1. The Democrats think that if the tax cuts expire, then when Obama re-instates new ones, then everyone will believe that the Bush Tax Cuts were a failure and the new, Obama Tax Cuts, are good.  This of course ignores the budget deficit and sequestration issues.  Not to mention worrying everyone that just wants things to go back to 'normal'.
2. The Republicans would rather vote to create new tax cuts (even if they are "Obama Tax Cuts"), than vote to 'raise taxes'.  Note, they are not afraid of losing to Democrats, they are afraid of losing primary elections to "T partiers".   In effect, they think their own people are so stupid, they can't tell that voting to extend tax cuts only for a small group is exactly the same as letting them expire and voting for new tax cuts for only that small group.

In my opinion, the GOP is mostly to blame.  Mainly because they have tried a really stupid, ease to see-through trick.

There is a basic negotiating tactic called High Ball.  You start with something ridiculous that you know they won't get.  Everyone does this.  It's normal.  But there is a higher stakes version.

It is something called Padding.  You start not at something you really want but instead something that you have zero interest in, that you call essential - something called 'padding'.  You try to convince your opponent that giving up your padding is a huge concession. Then you don't have to give up much more.
 It's the difference between saying "I will only vote to raise the debt ceiling if you cut entitlements on a one for one basis with tax hikes on the rich."  and saying "I don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all, just to get me to do that, you have to say no new taxes.  Then we can negotiate where to cut spending."

A variant of this is called 'false concession'.  That's what they did this time.  They put forth a bunch of crap and said "What do I get for this?"

Obama did not fall for that trap.  He responded with "Nothing.  You get nothing for that.  It's the base value."

I know, you guys are going to say "But they were offering something."  No, they weren't.  they offered nothing, and for nothing, you get nothing.

You see, the base start of the negotiation is not your ideal platform, because anyone can pad the ideal platform.

The base start of every budget negotiation is the last agreement you have.  The current agreement is as follows:

1)  All of Bush's tax cuts go away.
2) Debt ceiling goes up, preventing us from paying back the loans we already have.
3)  Sequestration of the budget
4)  AMT tax rates start applying at the low, un-indexed for inflation rate.

 Oh, and one more thing - Obama was re-elected and the GOP lost Congressmen which puts the DNC. The GOP had the chance to negotiate before hand.

The GOP CHOOSE to not try for a negotiation before the election.  They stupidly thought they would win the election and have a better shot.

They lost that bet.  That means they start out at a disadvantage.  That's how that works.   Obama doesn't have to get re-elected.  he doesn't have to worry about pissing off the voters.  He doesn't have to worry about anything.

It's the GOP that has to worry - and they damn well better.   


What's going to happen with the budget negotiations?  I think we will go off the fiscal cliff and then they will have a new agreement:

1)  Debt Ceiling will go up.
2)  AMT indexing will be at least temporarily extended (if not permanently - or perhaps the AMT will go away with some other simpler method put in).
3)  Sequestration will not happen (or it it does, it will be quickly ended)
4)  Taxes will go up for people making over somewhere between 250 and 500 k.  They won't go up for people making less.  Pay roll tax will probably be modified as well.

More about Treaonous Republicans

 I have talked about treasonous Republicans before.  This is not about the same Republican, but about others that follow his general line of thinking.

First let me say that in my personal opinion, most conservatives are not treasonous.  They are ethical, honorable people I enjoy having dinner with.    But in the last 40 years or so, they have attracted quite a few traitors.

The thing is, that even 60 years ago, it were the liberals that were talking treason.   Not anymore.  Now, every time you have some blowhard talking treason, he is from the far right, not the far left.  There are no communists trying to take over the government, just fascists trying to get us to do what they want, even if most of us vote against it.

No stand offs with armed liberals holding back the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in California.    No.   It's even the conservatives that talk about 'second amendment solutions', seceding, reloading, etc.

Usually when you question them about it, they claim they were not serious.   In other words they are shocked, shocked that anyone actually believed them.   Apparently, even conservatives don't think anyone actually believes the words that come out of their mouth.

The thing is, people do.  People listen when you vilify the president, claiming he isn't legitimate.  People listen when you talk about armed insurrection - even in a veiled way.  If you like the idea of 'blood libel', they hey, you join the party that talks about it, rather than the party that condemns it.

As a result, the GOP has, over the past 40 years attracted the majority of psychotic christian nut jobs that want to overthrow the government.   [ Why just the christian nut jobs?  Because the GOP is quite clearly pro christian and anti every other religion - including Judaism  despite their fervent claims and pro-Israel stance - and that's why Jews still prefer the Democrat party.   The same goes for Muslims, and other religions.  ]


But lets talk about the latest bit of treason.

The GOP has looked at the demographics and realized that given their current stance and reputation, they will never win another US Presidency.  Never ever.  Quite a few of the smart, honorable republicans have therefore insisted on changing the vision of the Republican Party. Henry Olsen, Luigi Zingales, Robert Stein, James Caprett,   David Frum, and Ross Duthat for example.

But not every Republican is an honorable or intelligent as the esteemed men listed above. Note, I looked for a woman but it's hard to find a Republican woman that qualified, unfortunately.  Part of the problem, of course.

So some of these less honorable and less intelligent Republicans instead want to change the way we elect the President.  They can't win, so instead of trying harder, they want to change the rules so that they have an advantage.

The first suggestion is to simply have the Republican controlled state houses of the swing states, shift to proportionate electoral voting, as opposed to winner take all.  That is, have them do it like Main or Nebraska - BUT ONLY IN LIBERAL STATES.   They want the Republican states to remain winner take all.  This would be unethical, but not outright treason.  As I said, Maine and Nebraska already do it that way.

Lets assume they managed to do that in all of the following states;  Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Florida.   Those were all big states Obama won, that the GOP thought they had a chance of winning (they didn't).   Lets assume they go all out and round off, so the state winner doesn't always get one extra electoral vote.  If you get 51% of the state vote, you get 51% of the electoral votes, which if number is even, is the exact same number of electoral votes as the loser gets.

Given the 2012 election, that means they would have +10 votes for PA, +5 votes for WI, +9 votes for OH, and +14 votes from FL, for a total of  +38 extra electoral votes.  They actually won 206, so with +38, electoral votes, that brings them to 244.  Obama still wins.  

OK, let's try it with all the states that are not Strongly Democratic.  Add in +3 votes from Nevada, +3 from Iowa, +5 from Michigan, +8 votes from Michigan, and +2 from New Hampshire.  For a total of another 21 votes.  That brings them to 265.  Obama still wins.

Why?  Because the country as a whole prefers the Democrats.  It's not just a bunch of east coast and west coast liberals,.  And because New York and California contain so many people and are so strongly Democrat.

They would need to try and pull that crap in either most of the Democrat controlled states, or at least in California and New York to have a chance to affect this past election.    Worse, the country isn't stupid and if the GOP tried such god awful crap, it could very likely give the House to the Democrats, not to mention giving the Senate a super majority (no more filibustering).

So lets try the next bit of bullshit.  The scheme proposed by the traitor, Reid Wilson.  

And they are not alone.  The traitors Robert Godshall (Repubican State Rep) and Seth Grove (Republican State Rep) are trying to implement this evil scheme in Pennsylvania.  If it had been in place, Obama, who won 52% over 47% of the state's popular vote would have only been given Romeny would have won 13 of the 20 electoral votes and Obama get only 7.  Yes, Obama, winning the popular vote by 5% would get just over 1/2 as many electoral votes as Romney.


How do you totally destroy the very heart of democracy?   You award electoral votes by congressional district, as opposed to by state.  That is, each district vote separately and the winner wins one electoral vote.   Of course, they only want to do this in Democrat states.  Despite the fact that they control the majority of House Districts due to gerrymandering.

In fact, the gerrymandering is so bad, that if this was the case, they could quite literally lose the popular vote by a major amount - 10% or even 20% , and still 'win' the presidential election - no lets be honest here and use the word 'achieve' the Presidency.

Again, Republicans are too stupid to realize that the Second amendment protects Democrats right to take up arms and rebel against a treasonous dictator just as much as it protects the Republicans.  If they tried this crap, and it was not thrown out of court, we would have another civil war against the fascist pigs that think they can ignore the will of the people.   The entire point of Democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is done.  When you try to ignore it, we rise up and slap you down.

This is a free country.  We get to vote on who rules us.  If you try to steal the vote by rigging the ballot box or just by rigging the system, you won't like what we do to your body.

But that won't happen.  The Supreme Court would throw it out.

Because you see, gerrymandering is an incredibly vile act that states get away with mainly because it doesn't affect how powerful someone's vote is, it affects who you get to vote for.  It escapes under a technicality.  We all know how evil it is, but we haven't found a way to kill it yet because of that technicality.  The Supreme Court takes the Presidency very seriously, I assure you, if someone tried to gerrymander the Presidency, it gets tossed.

His idea is to use gerrymandering in a new way, so it not only affects who you get to vote for (congressman), but how powerful your vote becomes.  In his system, the majority of people will no longer have one person one vote.   but instead a complex system of one person, one share of one vote.  With the system designed to ensure that minorities shares are worthless.  


The traitor Reid Wilson would find his scheme, once it is used to reduce the value of minority votes, gets thrown out by the Supreme Court of the United States.   Oh, and it would also probably end Gerrymandering.  

SCOTUS would throw it out under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that the right to vote may not be abridged by any state on account of race.  The court has already ruled that things like literacy tests, poll taxes etc.  qualify as abridging the right.  Abridging does not have to specifically mention race, it just needs to be done in such a way as to affect race.  I am sure the majority of the court would rule his ridiculous district plan abridges the right to vote of the minority voters as they are all concentrated in gerrymandered districts.

You see, the GOP's problem is that they are racist.  As such they have so few black republicans (less than 15%).  So all the schemes the GOP likes to dream about violate the 15th amendment.


Reid Wilson, Robert Godshall, and Seth Grove (and their traitor brothers) do not understand the laws of the United States, the idea of Democracy, or ethics.  They put party above country, above freedom, above Democracy.

But America is still a free country.  We don't let dictators like Mussolini, Stalin or Castro ignore the popular vote.

That's why their traitor's scheme will never come to pass.  

Armed Guards At Schools

The NRA has finally broken their silence after the Newport School shooting.

Their proposal is to have armed guards in school.

One pro-gun speaker said "The only way to stop bad men with guns is with good men with guns."

You know what?  I agree with that pithy statement.  But should those good men try to stop the bad men at the schools - or in the gun shops?  I personally would far rather have them shoot the badmen in the gun shops that at our schools.

Lets talk about why putting armed guards in school is a bad idea.

1. We want small government, not a bigger one.
2.  Too expensive.    We have a budget - and are fighting over it already.
3. Kids don't just stay in schools.  There are also playgrounds, parks, beaches, toy stores, candy stores, and many other such locations.  
4. I don't want adults shot either.   Should we post a guard at my house, work, etc?

Arresting bad men when they buy the guns makes far more sense.  It makes for a smaller government, is cheaper, protects all the schools and other locations.  It protects adults as well.

Civilians do not need automatic rifles.  Owning one should be illegal.   People sell versions of them that are not automatic that can be converted to fully automatic.  Which means a gunsmith can take a fully automatic one and make it semi-automatic.  Pass a law making it  illegal for civilians to own them.  Give them a year to sell them or have them converted to semi.

Every single gun purchaser should be checked for criminal background.   Give purchasers a choice - either get a federal license to buy one instantly, or have the store submit the name to a state and have the state take a 10 days to check the guy out.    This lets people get a gun instantly for self protection at the cost of giving their names to the Federal government.  It also lets people buy a gun without giving their name to the Federal government. 

How to fix the Fiscal Cliff without raising taxes

First, we should raise taxes to the Clinton era.  Under Clinton, the economy not only grew, but we actually had a balanced budget - in large part due to the tax rate he used.


But given hat the Republicans staked their reputation on not doing this.   Their incredibly stupid pledge of "Don't raise taxes"- mainly at the insistence of an un-elected lobbyist Grover Norquist-  may force us to do this.

But lets talk about how to do this.

1. Cap Tax Credits to no more than the minimum tax rate for 25%  Currently that would be $35,351.   Why the weird wording?  To make it automatically rise when the tax brackets do.  Note Tax Credits are far more valuable than tax deductions - they directly reduce your tax bill on a $1 for $1 basis. 
2. Cap Tax Deductions to no more than the minimum tax rate for 28%.  Currently that would be $85,561. 
3. While we are capping credits and deductions, eliminate the caps for all federal taxes.  Currently you only pay payroll taxes on the first $110,000.  So wealthy people basically pay far less a percentage of their wages than the average person for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.   Similarly unemployment taxes are currently capped at $1,000 per employee.   No longer will we let the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes - they have to pay tax on every dollar they make, not just the first $100,000 or so.
4. Rule that any capital gains or dividends over $100,000 count as regular income, with an exception for the sale of any home you have lived in for more than 5 years continuously. 

These three rules basically eliminate massive unfair advantages that the wealthy have.  It won't affect the poor at all.  The middle class would have to have rather unusual tax situation to be significantly affected.  But the wealthy would lose massive tax advantages they have.  As a side note it makes Social Security solvent again and is a step towards fixing Medicare and Medicaid.

Then lets talk about cutting spending.   The military are ripe for tax cuts.   Use the original sequestration formula - For every $1 that the House Majority (GOP) take from the military, the Senate Majority (DNC) will take away $1 from non-military spending.


 Note, by Tax Deductions, I am not referring to business expenses.  Those should paid directly (or re-reimbursed) by your business, subtracting from their bottom line, so they don't pay taxes on it in the first place.  Instead I am referring to charity giving, 401K contributions, retirement account expenses, mortgage taxes, etc. 

Some will the claim this will reduce charity giving, because you can only get deductions for the first $85,561.  Trust me, if you give more than $85,561 to charity, you are not doing it for the tax deduction.   Similar arguments apply for Tax Credits.



These short, simple rules will raise substantially raise the tax on the wealthy

Why is there evil in th world.

After the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Ct, some are asking the question WHY?  Not just why these particular 20 kids and 6 heroic teachers died, but why any evil exists in the world.  We can understand accidents and natural disasters, but true, real evil is just mind boggling.

There are two main answers to this heart rending question.

1)   It's our fault.  Yes, you, the reader.  And mine.   This answer is founded on either a benevolent God granting free will or the non-existence of a benevolent God.   In either case, mankind has control of our own world, we get to make our own decisions, and therefore we, as a collective whole, are responsible for the evil in the world.   Which brings me back to you, the reader.  Are you a cop, prosecutor, judge or at the very least, politically active?  If not, WHY NOT?  Don't you know there's evil in the world?  Why aren't you personally taking action to stop it?   Yes, not all of us are suited to work in the field of criminal justice, but this is a free democracy, and as such, at the very least you have the power to vote, lobby or run for political office.  Evil exists because not enough of us take the necessary action to stop it. Most just look the other way - or worse, put other things ahead of justice.  That's our fault.  Do something.  Run for office, vote, or just lobby.  But DO SOMETHING, FOR GOD'S SAKE, THERE IS EVIL AFOOT! *

2) Evil is not so bad. This argument is founded on the idea of Heaven.  Once you postulate a pleasant afterlife, then death just isn't so bad.   So they went to heaven, what's the big deal?   If you don't believe in the afterlife, then this argument doesn't work.   If you do believe in the afterlife, then why are you so upset?    Well, the honest answer to that is God has gone out of God's way to ensure that we don't have proof about the afterlife.   In other words, God wants us to take death seriously.  He wants us to DO SOMETHING, FOR GOD'S SAKE, THERE IS EVIL AFOOT! *


If you don't believe in God or look at God as a parental figure, then the answer is more of #1.  If however, you believe in God and think of him more as a creator/author/artist, then the answer is more of #2.  But in either case, you should become politically active.  If you are political, then you can create change.  Not just in your own community but in the country as a whole.  We can make this world a better place.  If we don't, then it's our own fault.

But honestly, neither of these answers give me much solace.  They are not about comforting the grieving, but instead about inspiring action.     In my heart, death is tragic, as opposed to not so bad.   As for accepting personal responsibility, that just makes me feel worse..  What could I have done better, what could I have done right to stop the horrible events in Newtown?  Discussed gun control more?   Fought harder for liberal causes?

But this isn't about comforting the grieving, this is about preventing future evil.  Evil is at heart wronging the innocent. These 26 people were very innocent.   They have been wronged greatly.

What it comes down:  Evil exists because there are consequences to our actions.  If we do not regulate actions, then evil has a free hand.  If we over-regulate actions, then we ourselves do evil.  The trick is to find the middle ground.    When we go too far in any one direction, evil happens.  When it comes to gun rights, the conservatives have gone way too far in their actions.  They have prevented many sensible and necessary laws out of ridiculous ideas.



* Yes, saying 'afoot'  is corny.   The word corny means excessively sentimental.  Maybe it's just me, but after Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14th, 2012, I am feeling sentimental. If you think I'm being excessive, that's your opinion.

Gun Control.

My heart goes out the friends and family of the 26 people killed in Connecticut.  My heart also goes out to the 22 kids stabbed in China.  Note it goes out to the friends and family of the Americans, but directly to the Chinese children, because all of the Chinese kids survived.  The old phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" was fairly concisely proven wrong. 


I'm not against guns.  But our gun laws are horrible.  They need to be fixed.

There are at heart three different arguments against gun control.  Part of the problem is that all three have different consequences about which rules we should use.

1. Legal sports use - hunting
2. Self defense against common criminals
3. Defense against oppressive government.

Arguments one and two are rather logical, reasonable - and would allow for logical, reasonable laws.  Argument three makes very little sense - how often do we rebel and what insane government helps it's citizens rebel?   Except for the fact that it is the entire reason why guns are legal in the first place. It's why we have the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  Without the Second amendment, argument 3 would be laughed at by most reasonable people - any government that is truly oppressive would have found a way to take your guns already.   In fact, a truly oppressive government would simply declare the second amendment illegal.


But let's go through the consequences of those arguments.

#1 Hunting usage allows for major restrictions (no automatic weapons, no hand guns, no big clips), long waiting periods, thorough background checks, and government registration of all guns.  Also, all guns should be kept locked in a safe when not in use.  Concealed carry should require a permit, which should be hard to get.   No taking the guns to a bar, schools, work, etc. 

#2 Defense is a rather different argument.  In some ways it is the exact opposite of #1.   It says that hand guns are good, big clips allowed for them, but still no automatic weapons.   No waiting periods, but thorough background checks are allowed.   Still have government registration of all guns, but you need to have at least one gun out of the gun safe.  Concealed Carry should now be allowed with an easy to acquire permit.  You can take the guns anywhere.

#3 Rebellion is very different requirements.  Here we say no limits on guns (hell, let them get a tank), waiting periods are out, as are background checks and registration.   Guns should be kept in a locked safe when not in use.  Concealed carry should require a permit which can be hard to get  (If you are rebelling, you don't care about breaking that law).  You can't take any gun out of your home (unless you are rebelling, again if you are rebelling, you are willing to break this law).


So the three different arguments for guns, which should result in three radically different rules.  Part of the problem is that the pro-gun lobby has lobbied for the least restrictive for all the various sets of rules.   That is ridiculous.

Lets talk about what a reasonable country can and should do.


A)  Only Rebellion requires automatic weaponry.  Both other arguments are against it.  But rebels can modify guns.   So outlaw all civilian automatic weapons, but allow modifiable semi-automatic guns.  That is no civilian one can buy, sell or own any fully automatic weapon (assault rifle), but they can be designed so that it is easy to take a semi-automatic weapon and turn it into an assault rifle.

B)   Long guns have a month waiting period.  They are purchased for hunting or rebellion.   No federal registration required.   You can't take them to bars, schools, work, etc.


C)  Reasonable caliber handguns should be legal but federally registered.   No waiting period.   Frankly, no rebellion would seriously arm their militia with them.  Range is too small, and they get stopped by bullet proof vests.    Without a concealed carry permit, you can't carry it into a school, work, or bar.

D)  As handguns are being federally registered, concealed carry permits should be required - and work nationally.  They should be moderately strict - no criminals, no one ever committed to a mental   No one taking certain drugs (anti-psychotics, anti-depressants), etc. etc.   With the permit, you can take it anywhere.     AFTER they are issued, a check should be done to see if the person is safe.  If they are dangerous, revoke them and this will automatically trigger a search warrant for their home, car, and work.   Any guns will be confiscated.  If you have a concealed gun on you, you are not allowed to drink (or permit is revoked, gun is confiscated, and you go to jail as per drunk driving conviction.)

E)  All guns must be kept in a locked safe unless they are in your possession.  If you own more than one gun, you are legally required to buy and own a gun safe.  We can sell gun safes that fit in pickups. 


------------

That said, how do we get to the above laws?

I would do the following, as a start.

Note this law would be inseparable - that is if any part is cancelled, the entire bill would be cancelled.

Issue a new government gun permit.  It takes a month to get (during which they check you out).   You can buy and own a gun without it - but only at a store, not at the gun shows.   Unless you are federally licensed to buy or sell guns, it is illegal to sell a gun to anyone that does not have the gun permit.  When you purchase a gun with the federal gun permit, it gets photocopied and sent to the federal government.  There is no such requirement if the person selling is at their gun store and has a license to sell guns (continue to use the old rules).

In addition, if you have a concealed carry permit in your own state, then this new government gun permit would let you conceal carry outside your home state.  If you move out of your home state, then you have one week to initiate new rules.

Finally, if you own more than one gun, you are legally required to buy and use a gun safe.

This gives something to the NRA (federal concealed carry permits), but closes the main loopholes in buying guns.  At the same time it tries to make it a little bit harder to steal guns.

Note, this won't do everything we need.   But it's a start.

Right to Work vs Unions.

Unions are a good thing.

They did wonderful work before anti-trust laws, OSHA and minimum wage laws were created.   In fact, their instance on high safety standards and high wages are probably why those bills were created.

They are in fact the primary reason America has a middle class.

They are also in fact good, not just for America, but often for American businesses.   They force us to be innovative, rather than just the low cost provider.  It is always better to be the smart business rather than the cheap one.

Unfortunately, Unions are in trouble.   They are losing members.  Part of this is due to their own success.  We have OSHA and tons of laws now in large part because of the Unions.  But that means we have less need for them.

As a result, the Unions did something that looks strange to a lot of people.  They passed contracts that said all employees - both the Union members and the non-members must pay for the Union's work.

Their argument is that the non-members are benefiting from the deals the Union generate, even if indirectly, so they should still pay.  That, is when the Union forces a company to have healthcare and a pension/401K, then even people that are not a part of the Union participate.

But what it comes down to is that they are forcing people to pay for a service they don't want.  The solution is not to force people to join the Union, but instead to not give them the same benefits.  

The Right to Work laws basically make this illegal.  That is, the Union can't force a non-member to pay them money.  While I am liberal, I agree that those laws make sense.   The methodology the Unions has been using is no better than the monopolistic tactics big business they were formed to fight.

The real problem is that while business has evolved, the Unions have not.  They have failed to innovate, instead trying to be the a monopoly - which was exactly the first thing they broke up in big business.

So here are a few ideas for Unions:

1. Branch out of traditional areas   This is not a new idea, the Unions have been trying for years.   Push harder for it. Grad students should definitely get a Union.  Go after Professors as well.  Waiters and waitress.   There there are criminals that are forced to work.   Go after them.   
2. Look at fixing the problems within existing unions - or simply starting competing ones.   The Screen Actors Guild has become more about keeping new people OUT of acting jobs rather than about helping actors.  What a joke - a Union that tries to limit it's membership????   Start a new Acting Guild for new actors and compete with SAG.  Unions are there to ensure fair treatment, not to restrict who can and can not work.
3. Clean up the Union's demands.   Get rid of things we all know are foolish - the classic requirements of Electricians to turn on/off the lights, pension plans instead of 401Ks.  
4. Stop protecting people that the Union doesn't represent.  That is, end the entire concept of a "Union Shop".   The Union negotiates only for it's members, not other people that happen to work for the same company.  Build that into their contracts.   If they want the benefits of the Union, they have to join the Union.  A simple rule would be to require that no non-union employee has their contract expire one month before or five months after the Union contract does.   That means when the Union contract is reset, they will have to wait at least four months to get the new deal.

Yes, a smart business will during good times, give their non-union employees almost the same stuff.  But when things get tough, guess which group of employees will suffer first.

Then throw in a 5 year contract for union members.  That is, when you sign up for a union, you agree to join for at least 5 years or until you are fired.   Then build into your union contracts seniority clauses - based on years in the Union, not years at the business.

This lets people decide whether or not to join the union, but doesn't let them free ride on it.