February 17-18, 2011
Feb 17 03:28 GOP Drumbeat Just Starting Feb 17 04:34 Playing Politics, Ignoring Economics Feb 17 06:12 The Case For Stubbornness Feb 17 16:56 Why Is the DFL Hearkening Back to the 80's? Feb 17 20:13 Brass Knuckles & Hard Lines Feb 18 03:35 Spending Battle a Fight We Should Have Feb 18 00:56 Target Caves to Liberal Thugs Feb 18 07:14 Let's Privatize K-12 Feb 18 08:44 Wisconsin Crisis Spreading Across State, Nation
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Spending Battle a Fight We Should Have
If there's anything that the American people are pissed about, it's the rate at which the federal government spends money. That's why Republicans should be thanking their lucky stars for the upcoming deadline for the CR.
This isn't something that should be dreaded. Why wouldn't we want to pick this fight? If the Senate insists that they won't go along with deep spending cuts, then we should have Paul Ryan on every Sunday morning show and have him holding daily press conferences, talking about the virtues of cutting spending.
Karl Rove and Dick Morris agree that we should fight this fight to the end. Here's Rove's take:
President Obama's 2012 budget is not a serious governing document. It's a political one, designed to boost his re-election chances.
By repeatedly saying that his budget reduces the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years, he hopes the numbers make him sound fiscally conservative. But he puts off 95% of the deficit reduction until after his term ends in 2013. And he assumes that economic growth in the next few years will be at least 25% higher than credible economic forecasters estimate.
Mr. Obama's budget includes $1.6 trillion in tax increases that are real enough - but most of the spending cuts are not. For example, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman pointed out to me, the administration projects war costs for Iraq and Afghanistan at surge levels for the next decade, and then conjures up about $1.3 trillion in defense savings by assuming drawdowns in each theater - drawdowns that were already in the cards. Outside of this sham transaction, according to Mr. Ryan, there are only $104 billion in real spending cuts over the next 10 years.
This is why Paul Ryan must be the Republican face of this fight. The Obama administration's con game is being exposed, thanks to Chairman Ryan's work. Why would the administration argue that drawdowns that are already scheduled should count as budget savings? This is insulting.
Here's a key portion of Morris' post:
The Republican leadership needs to make a bold statement and send Obama a bill that sticks in his big-spending throat. If the Senate won't pass it or the president threatens a veto, even better. Obama's approval ratings, recently rising to 51% from 41% in the past two months according to the FoxNews poll will fall back down again, and lower, if he gets into a fight against cutting government spending. The Republicans in the House will have called his bluff about moving to the center and will force the kind of fiscal belt-tightening they heralded during the campaign.
And if the government has to operate in a state of crisis, with continuing resolutions keeping it funded day after day, so much the better! It will call attention to how intractable the Democrats are in resisting any cut in spending.
President Obama isn't moving to the center. When Clinton moved (relatively) to the center, he supported the death penalty; he "ended welfare as we know it"; he balanced the budget. President Obama's 'move to the center' has been saying that he'd consider other people's good ideas for health care reform.
Mind you, he didn't say he'd say that he'd agree with anything beyond the most minimal change in provisions. He said he'd consider other people's ideas. How noble of him.
This isn't a fight the Republicans should shy away from. This is a fight they should run towards, provided they put their best people at the front. That means putting Paul Ryan, Dave Camp, Mike Pence, Thad McCotter and Jeb Hensarling at the front to argue the Republicans' case.
If they do that, they'll win this fight and the 2012 election. It's just that simple.
Posted Friday, February 18, 2011 3:35 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 18-Feb-11 03:47 PM
I seriously doubt that Ron Paul would have a thing to do with either Rove or Morris. I think he'll select better people.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Feb-11 04:29 PM
Ron Paul might run but he's irrelevant. Rove's & Morris' analysis is spot on. The DFL in St. Paul & Democrats in DC think things haven't changed, that they can continue with their ways. I look forward to seeing these idiots get roasted in Nov., 2012.
Comment 2 by Diane Pearce Votes for Obama Again at 24-Mar-11 08:49 PM
Just wanted to say that I am working at a big biotherapeutic corporation in Clayton NC and I endroce Barack Obama with all my being. I would love for all my friends and colleagues to vote for Obama in 2012!! I LOVE YOU OBAMA
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Mar-11 06:35 AM
Diana, It'll be a joy when he's defeated that first Tuesday in November, 2012. I'd love knowing what you think he's done right. The Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional & doesn't lower costs. The stimulus failed if you weren't part of a government union.
He's alienated our allies around the world. He's attempted to befriend the most evil regimes in the world.
He's refused to let American energy companies access our nation's energy supplies at a time when gas is skyrocketing. Meanwhile, unemployment is north of 12% if you include the people who've quit looking for work.
I'm 55 & I've never seen a more incompetent president & administration.
GOP Drumbeat Just Starting
Bob von Sternberg's post says that Republican leadership is recycling its talking points about Gov. Dayton's budget:
Republican legislative leaders resumed their criticism Wednesday of Gov. Mark Dayton's budget blueprint, aiming most of their rhetorical fire at his plan to raise income taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans.
Such a tax increase is simply not acceptable, said House Speaker Kurt Zellers. "This budget is detatched from the reality every other state has recognized," he said.
The GOP leaders largely recycled the talking points they made Tuesday in the wake of Dayton's budget presentation,including displaying a U.S. map that declared "state governments take a stand against new taxes, except Gov. Mark Dayton."
I'd disagree with von Sternberg's characterization of the GOP's "talking points." I'd argue that they're the GOP's long-held policy beliefs. Talking points are more what politicians and political operatives use to "stay on message" rather than deal with specific questions.
Talking points usually are used when a politician doesn't have a substantive answer or when they're plain wrong.
That isn't the case here. The GOP leadership has a 'tax map' showing every governor either cutting taxes pledging not to raise taxes. There's bipartisan support for not raising taxes.
While Zellers said the "depth and breadth of concerns we have about the budget can't be expressed," the Republican leaders offered no specific alternatives to Dayton's plan.
What wasn't said in that sentence is that the GOP has identified wasteful spending that's happening in this biennium. That was the basis of the bill they passed that Gov. Dayton vetoed.
I know from conversations with legislators that they'll submit a budget bill to the public the minute the February forecast is unveiled. That's a stark contrast with the DFL majority in 2009:
It happened again Thursday. The Minnesota House was meeting in full session, running through some routine business, when Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, rose, cleared his throat and said to DFLers, 'We've been here a month; why are we still waiting for your budget proposal?'
There were some head shakes, but no response. The House got back to the business at hand.
Emmer's question has become the mantra of state Republicans. In every public forum, at least one or two Republican legislators raise the question: If DFL legislators don't like Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed budget, why don't they come up with one of their own?
'It's strategic,' said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, of the Republican cry. 'It's designed to freak people out on our side, and it takes attention off the governor's budget.'
Kelliher and Pogemiller never submitted a budget. They spent their time criticizing Gov. Pawlenty's budget. Some people are sure to say that this sounds similar. They have a bit of a point...with this exception: the GOP has already submitted substantial legislation reforming the budgeting and permitting processes. They've also passed legislation cutting wasteful spending ahead of the Feb. forecast.
This is far beyond what the DFL did in 2009. That year, they spent a month trying to solicit testimony proving the need for tax increases:
From: Gene Pelowski [mailto:Rep.Gene.Pelowski@house.mn]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
This Friday, February 20, there will be a bicameral hearing held in our region. Senators and Representatives from both political parties will be in Winona from 3:30 to 5:30 PM, Winona City Hall, 207 Lafayette St. The purpose of this hearing is to get testimony from affected programs in every level of government, education, health care or service impacted by the cuts suggested by the Governor's state budget.
I am writing you to ask that you or a designee get scheduled to testify. You may do this by going to the House website at www.house.mn and clicking on 'Town Meetings'.
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs. To be respectful of the time necessary to hear from a large number of constituents it would be advised to use no more than 3-5 minutes to convey your message. If you choose to provide handouts or printed materials, please plan to bring approximately 25 copies, enough for committee members and media.
Sincerely,
Representative Gene Pelowski
District 31A
This GOP legislature has held more hearings on substantive reforms already than the DFL held during the entire 2009 session.
It's important to highlight the fact that Gov. Dayton's tax increases are totally out of touch with Minnesotans' priorities. The business community certainly isn't pleased with Gov. Dayton's tax increases. Main Street Minnesotans aren't happy with them either, mostly because they elected GOP majorities to stop the insane spending.
Gov. Dayton's budget doesn't cut spending. According to King Banaian, Dayton's budget solves the deficit with $4 of tax increases for each dollar in spending cuts :
Gov. Mark Dayton today unveiled historic tax increases and the nation's highest income-tax bracket as his means to setting Minnesota's budget.
His plan calls for around $4 billion in tax increases; that's approximately $4 in tax increases for every $1 in spending reductions. Our state would increase spending by 22 percent over current levels, to around $37 billion.
Gov. Dayton better drop these demands ASAP because they're unrealistic and unsustainable. It's time that Gov. Dayton started dealing with reality rather than with what satisfies his political allies.
Posted Thursday, February 17, 2011 3:28 AM
No comments.
Playing Politics, Ignoring Economics
After reading this article , it's apparent that the DFL doesn't see Gov. Dayton's budget as an economic document as much as they see it as a political document. That's confirmed by Gov. Dayton's interview in this article. First, here's the key portion of Gov. Dayton's interview:
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton said Wednesday that the budget he unveiled this week is not an end-all solution to the state's financial woes and if others have better ideas, he wants to hear them.
'My budget is not the end point, it's the starting point,' Dayton told The Forum's editorial board during a visit to the Fargo-Moorhead area.
The fact that Gov. Dayton isn't even fighting for his budget a day after he released it says two things: that he isn't willing to fight for principles and policie that are important to him and that he won't have DFL legislators' backs when they're casting important votes. This isn't the way to win their support for his budget.
Then there's this from the South Washington County Bulletin:
Sen. Katie Sieben said it was too early to say whether she could support Dayton's overall budget package or even whether she could back the tax measures he included.
'It's a starting point' for the legislative process, said Sieben, DFL-Cottage Grove. 'I don't know enough details about it to say whether I would vote for it if there was a bill before me today.'
However, Sieben said she does support the concept of raising taxes on the wealthy to generate more state revenue.
'In theory, do I think that the highest earners in the state should pay a similar percentage of their income in state and local taxes as my constituents? Yes,' she said.
Sen. Sieben is essentially making a fairness argument. That's her right but that's a social justice argument, not an economic argument. An economic argument would talk about what would spread prosperity to the most people in the quickest time possible.
Sen. Sieben isn't making that argument.
Perhaps the DFL is just dealing with political reality, that the DFL can't win policy fights against the MNGOP's policies. I'm not buying that, though. I'm more inclined to think that they're attempting to set a trap against the GOP closer to the end of the session. If that's what they're doing, I'm betting that it won't work.
People voted in November for candidates who promised to cut spending. Republicans don't have any reason to compromise on the main parts of their campaign agenda. Will they compromise on some things? I'm certain they will but it won't be on taxes or on the biggest drivers of spending.
Dayton's two-year budget plan relies on increased income taxes on what he said are the top 5 percent of earners, and other tax and surcharges totaling $4.2 billion. It includes a new fourth-tier income tax of 10.95 percent for a couple with $150,000 annual taxable income. Additionally, Dayton would impose a temporary 3 percent income tax surcharge on people earning over $500,000.
Sieben said she wants to learn more about a Dayton provision that would create a state property tax for homes valued at more than $1 million.
Sieben said the Dayton plan includes $2.4 billion in spending reductions.
If those numbers are right, Gov. Dayton's deficit solution is roughly comprised of 2 parts tax increases for each part spending reduction. That isn't what I'd consider a balanced approach.
I'd also argue that the numbers aren't right, that they're propped up by Legacy Act funding. I read something yesterday that didn't make sense. Here's what I'm talking about :
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency says even with an 11 percent reduction in funding, it will be able to make progress on key issues under Gov. Mark Dayton's budget proposal.
MPCA Commissioner Paul Aasen said the MPCA is also moving to streamline its permitting process. If federal cuts add significantly to state cuts, it will be harder to fulfill the agency's mission, he said.
I spoke with a friend of mine who is one of the Republicans' go to guys on environmental policy. This friend said that he noticed that money from the Legacy Act, which isn't part of the general fund, will be used to supplement the MPCA's budget. The big cut that everyone is seeing is actually a slight of hand trick.
When this session ends and the dust settles, it's likely that Republicans will have won most of the battles. That's because their budget is built on solid policies.
Posted Thursday, February 17, 2011 4:34 AM
No comments.
The Case For Stubbornness
The CW on a government shutdown is that it would help President Obama while painting Republicans as draconian budget slashing heathens. I've never bought into that thinking, mostly because American voters went to the polls and chose to elect draconian budget-slashing heathens in unprecedented numbers.
The phrase "Please don't drag me into that briar patch" seams appropriate.
Thanks to Michael Barone's column , I've now got an ally in this fight with gravitas:
The conventional wisdom is that the parties won't be able to agree on funding levels for the remainder of fiscal 2011. This could result in a government shutdown, like the one that occurred in 1995-96 when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich failed to agree on terms for continuing to fund government operations.
That was supposedly disastrous for the Republicans. Actually, it worked out well both for Clinton and for House Republicans, who lost only nine seats in 1996, a lot fewer than the 63 that the Democrats lost last November. Moreover, in 1995-96, we had healthy economic growth and the case for cuts was much weaker. Now there's a much stronger argument that we can't afford the increased spending Obama and Nancy Pelosi produced in 2009-10.
The situations are different, like night and day. Prior to 1995, President Clinton had offered budgets with real spending cuts. Thanks to those cuts, President Clinton had lots of economic credibility.
One half of President Obama's signature 'accomplishments' is the stimulus bill, which spiked spending by an outrageous rate. Since then, President Obama's spending has been through the roof. That's why he doesn't have much in the way of economic credibility.
Without that credibility, the fight becomes a battle over which person the people trust more. Opposite President Obama in this fight will be Paul Ryan. We know how that fight is decided. We've seen this fight before :
It was the Wisconsin congressman who made the most pointed remarks about Obama's reform proposal. For example:
This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.
The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion.
The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.
The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets.
The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.
The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries.
Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare President Obama didn't dare question Ryan's analysis.
Let's remember that House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich faced President Clinton when the economy was getting stronger. This time, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would be facing President Obama, to put it politely, when people question President Obama's economic policies.
Then there's the TEA Party factor, which certainly didn't exist in 1995. Whether people are TEA Party activists or whether they just agree with TEA Party principles is irrelevant. The point is that both groups want spending cut. A spending freeze isn't sufficient because it locks in spending at a rate these groups have deemed unacceptable.
It's likely that a significant portion of likely voters will be TEA Party activists or people who agree with the TEA Party on spending. That isn't a good position to be in if you're President Obama.
Posted Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:12 AM
No comments.
Why Is the DFL Hearkening Back to the 80's?
During his SOS speech, Gov. Dayton hearkened back to the Perpich administration's golden years . I didn't think of it at the time but this op-ed by Sen. Amy Koch and Sen. Geoff Michel triggered an original argument. Here's what they said that triggered my question:
Raising taxes is bad business, especially when our competitor states are doing just the opposite. Our neighbors in Wisconsin are lowering taxes and aggressively competing at our border.
My question for Gov. Dayton and the DFL is simple: Was Wisconsin and North Dakota cutting taxes in the 80's? Were Wisconsin and North Dakota recruiting Minnesota's companies in the 80's? Of course they weren't.
The point I'm making is simple: the DFL is telling us that we need to follow the blueprint they used in 80's even though the conditions are totally different. Why would we use the same formula after conditions have dramatically changed? That's stupid. Economist John Maynard Keynes' famous saying seems particularly fitting for this situation:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
Apparently, if you're a DFL legislator, you just ignore the changing facts and plow ahead without thinking about the negative consequences of your ineffective policies.
The DFL/Perpich/Golden Years blueprint doesn't work anymore because conditions have changed. The DFL's blueprint should've changed as conditions changed. They didn't.
Why they didn't change is the other interesting part of this equation. They haven't because a) their special interest allies won't let them move and b) they too cowardly to stand up to their special interest allies who are far outside mainstream thinking.
If the DFL wants to make the argument that their policies will improve Minnesota's competitiveness with other states, that's their right. It's just that their argument will be laughed at. It isn't a serious argument.
Why would a recent graduate from the U of M who wants to start a business start it in Moorhead instead of Fargo? North Dakota's education system produces good educational outcomes. Their taxes are significantly cheaper. Why on God's green earth would the DFL think that Minnesotans won't mind paying more in taxes to live here instead of Fargo?
Back 25-30 years ago, Minnesota could get away with the DFL's policies. It was inevitable, however, that other states made the adjustments to compete with Minnesota. Did the DFL think that these other states wouldn't mind losing competition after competition while their economies lost ground?
The DFL needs to stop thinking like it's the 1980's. Those times ended a lifetime ago. That's when their blueprint started falling apart.
Minnesotans need to take notice that the DFL a) isn't listening to them, b) is listening to their special interest allies and c) won't change even though the times call for it. If the DFL wants to continue living in their 1980's fantasyland, then they should pay a steep political price for their irresponsible policies.
Posted Thursday, February 17, 2011 4:56 PM
No comments.
Brass Knuckles & Hard Lines
If ever there was a time for bipartisanship, the teachers' controversy in Wisconsin isn't it. According to this BizJournal article , Scott Walker's demands on teachers are pretty reasonable:
Even with the proposed changes to public employees' benefits, state of Wisconsin employees will still pay less toward family health insurance plans than employees of most Midwest states, according to a study released Wednesday by HCTrends, a forum sponsored by a local health care consulting firm.
Of course, we're being told that this isn't about money, that it's about the right to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. That's BS. It's about much more than that.
What it's really about is Wisconsin teachers caring more about controlling their pay than about kids' educations. This is about the teachers' unions holding the biggest stick in negotiations.
Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget repair bill would require state employees to pay 12.4 percent of their health insurance costs, more than double what they pay now but still less than the 2009 average for state government employees, the study said. It also would be less than the employee contributions required at 85 percent of large Milwaukee-area employers.
The bill would increase the state employee share for family coverage by $1,560 to $2,496 per year. The average premium contribution at large private-sector companies in southeast Wisconsin is $3,875.
It's time for public sector unions to understand that their benefit packages can't be sustained. They're paying in less for their health care than what the people in the private sector are paying. These private sector employees are paying income and property taxes so that teachers can get superior benefits than their private sector supporters.
That Wisconsin Democrat legislators left the state rather than make the argument explaining why their position is superior is the picture of hardline, brass knuckle politicking. Wisconsin Senate Democrats have shown where their allegiances are. They've shown that they care infinitely more about their union supporters than they care about the teachers' students.
The Wisconsin Senate Democrats' stunt created a new wave of momma grizzlies that will vote Republican in 2012. Beyond the policy side of this situation, this is a politically stupid decision. Senate Democrats should've told the unions that the unions' demands were outrageous.
After the dust settles on this situation, the political reality is that Democrats will be hurt the next 2 election cycles. It might cost them Herb Kohl's U.S. Senate seat. If he stays silent, then parents will wonder why he wasn't a senior statesman that helps defuse this explosive situation.
UPDATE: I got this from a loyal reader of this blog:
My mother-in-law is a school secretary who was in the hospital for surgery. Her school was closed because so many teachers called in sick to go to Madison to protest.
Originally posted Thursday, February 17, 2011, revised 18-Feb 12:35 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 17-Feb-11 08:32 PM
You know what I am tired of? I am tired of someone who sits on his ass all day and criticizes me and the people I work with even though HE DOESN"T HAVE A JOB!
When you get a job and stop living off government health care and government benefits maybe just maybe I can start taking you seriously. GET A JOB!
THAT is what it is "time for"
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Feb-11 10:38 PM
Eric, Go fuck yourself. You don't know what government benefits I'm living off of. You think you do but you don't. FYI- I've been living off my 401(k)/IRA and some periodic research jobs.
I'm tired of little piss ants like you acting like you know it all. You don't. I wonder how good you'd be if you had to compete with private school teachers on a level playing field. You know, like where the money got attached to the student, not the building. I'm betting you wouldn't do that well. (FYI-I'm using the generic you.) It's time you proved you're as good as you think you are.
Comment 2 by Granny at 18-Feb-11 07:08 AM
Closing those schools is BS. Every school has a long list of available substitutes and subs should have been called in.
Target Caves to Liberal Thugs
Last summer, the DFL's goons attacked Target for contributing to MN Forward, an organization committed to electing pro-capitalist candidates. They made a video of a supposedly grieving Target shopper returning goods because Target supposedly had turned anti-gay.
Their case was a total scam. The grieving Target shopper turned out to be a GLBT activist with a longtime DFL activist:
Rondy Raiton: Last week when I heard that Target decided to give $150,000 to Tom Emmer for his political race for governor, I was just shocked. The Target I knew was the Target that embraced its gay employees. It was the Target that showed up at Pride.
Ronda Raiton: I didn't want to return the items until she [the store manager] was there to show her what I had purchased. I shared with her why I had purchased each item and who they were for and why that person wouldn't want me to purchase them at a Target store.
A number of the items were for my grandchildren and they love their Uncle Jake so much and Jake is gay and they wouldn't want things coming from a store that contributes to a campaign: that would have a governor candidate with the anti-gay views that Tom Emmer has.
This was a pre-staged event. The cameraman just happened to be at the exact Target store where activist Ronda Raiton was pulling this stunt at exactly the right time to capture the event on film. What are the odds of that, especially in a thinly populated place like Eden Prairie and where there's practically no Target stores?
These hate-filled activists created a fake story because they didn't like the notion that businesses could now do what unions have done forever. These organizations' activists hated Tom Emmer, some for his being a social conservative, some because they're socialists and he's a capitalist and others simply because he didn't have a D behind his name on the ballot.
Now Target has caved to the left's goon squad tactics. Shame on them. Instead of displaying a spine, Target's management curled up into the fetal position and begged mercy, thus giving the left's goons the ultimate victory they were hoping for.
These extremists' ultimate victory was essentially censoring corporations during campaigns. If there's anything we know, it's that the left's arguments are feeble and can't stand against conservatives' best arguments. They've known that since the 1970's. That's when Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the greatest thinkers in the history of the Democratic Party, said that the Republican Party had become the party of ideas.
The people who engineered this censorship are people who can't win policy fights. They're people who agreed with Alida Messinger, who spent millions of dollars of malicious advertising against Tom Emmer.
I won't pretend to lead a boycott of Target, mostly because I don't shop there. I'll just keep highlighting the progressive left's strongarm tactics in their attempt to censor those they disagree with.
Posted Friday, February 18, 2011 12:56 AM
No comments.
Let's Privatize K-12
Before Eric Austin comes flying in here having a fit, the headline is only meant to shock. It isn't a policy suggestion. Actually, it's something that David Harsanyi suggested in his latest column :
Wisconsin's fight is just a harbinger, of course. A recent Pew poll on states found that state pension systems have a combined $1 trillion in unfunded liability. In other words, every U.S. household may have the honor of subsidizing someone else's public service an extra $8,800.
The counterargument is familiar. These folks are sacrificing healthy salaries by choosing to teach your children rather than greedily chasing riches that they would almost certainly realize if they took their talents to the private sector. (Funny, isn't it then, that when we try to inject competition into education, it's met with anger and scorn by the people who sacrifice without it.)
But according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report, a new one is due next month, state and local government employees, all told, are already making approximately $12 more per hour than private workers. Last year, a USA Today analysis found that federal employees' average compensation had grown to be more than double what their private-sector counterparts were making. Public service, indeed.
Immunity from economic downturns and market fluctuations is a rarity in America, though we've been doing our best via bailouts. The problem isn't that government workers are trying to get theirs; it's that the arbitrary reward is often tied to the vociferousness of the worker's demand rather than reality.
Certainly, how Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker fares in this battle will be an important signal to the rest of the nation. Some places, such as Colorado, only recently have allowed state workers to organize. Other states are facing pension nightmares. Who knows? States may begin privatizing and allowing competitive outsourcing of jobs. States must, because nationally we're headed in the other direction.
If Harsanyi's statistics are right, and they usually are, then Wisconsin's teachers don't have much of a complaint. They're paying in next to nothing on their defined-benefit pensions. Even after their share of the insurance premium is hiked, they're still paying substantially less than private sector workers are paying for health insurance.
I'd love hearing why introducing competition to government schools isn't a good idea. Further, I'd love hearing why government school employees should get paid an average of $12/hr. more than their private sector counterparts. Perhaps there's a legitimate reason but I'll remain skeptical until I hear it.
One thing that's sure to come out of this is the end of defined benefit pensions. Another thing is the end of early retirements for all public employees. Retire and rehire practices simply don't cut it, especially when people are struggling like they are under President Obama's policies.
Pat Caddell, appearing on RedEye tonight, said this won't have a good outcome for Democrats. He said "I find it maddening that the DNC is in Wisconsin organizing this, which is to associate this...so they can say 'we're on the side of the...we're not only owned by the public sector unions like we're owned by all of our special interest groups."
In 2012, Republicans will run against the Democrats who sided with the public unions. This isn't gonna get pretty if you're a Democrat.
What's making this worse is the spin coming from union leaders :
Nievinski, president of the Mosinee Education Association union, said he was home sick when reached Thursday afternoon. He said the teachers' message is not much different than what is taught in the classroom.
"We teach our kids that when somebody bullies them, they need to stand up for what they believe in," he said. "I think this is a lesson for the students."
The lesson being taught, from my perspective anyway, is that you protest when asked to agree to some reasonable demands.
Check this exchange out:
While teachers are concerned about their union rights, Jodi Ullenbrauck's main concern Thursday was her three kids' education. "The only ones truly suffering here are our kids, because they're not getting an education today," she said.
Ullenbrauck, who has two children at Mosinee Elementary School and one at Mosinee Middle School, said parents were "blindsided" by the teachers' action, and were left scrambling to make arrangements for their kids.
But Nievinski said the district's administration was notified at 7 p.m. Wednesday about the mass absence.
"They're the ones who dropped the ball," he said.
It's the district's fault when they got blindsided the night before the protests? There's 150 teachers in Mosinee, 90 of whom called in. How does a district office replace 60 percent of their teachers with a couple hours notice? I don't know much about this Nievinski but what I know about him, I don't like.
Posted Friday, February 18, 2011 7:14 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 18-Feb-11 08:40 AM
I don't have any objection to what teachers get paid. My only objection is that they have no accountability for the results they are being paid to get, and don't even have to have their job performance evaluated. They get pay increases whether little Johnny learns anything or not. That would be the change I would make. I would immediately institute a performance review system for all teachers, and every dollar of future pay increases would be based on that performance. The worst teachers would never see a raise and would "fall behind" inflation. The best would quickly come to make more than they make now. If I really had my druthers I would establish "classes" of teachers, too, ranging from apprentice, perhaps (or novice) up to master teachers, who spent most of their time mentoring or overseeing the younger ones, teaching how to teach. When you got "promoted" you would climb onto a different evaluation level and pay scale. Strictly professional.
Wisconsin Crisis Spreading Across State, Nation
According to this article , the teacher strike is spreading to Wisconsin's biggest school district:
Officials say more than 600 of the 5,400 teachers in Milwaukee Public Schools called in sick Friday to attend the protests over Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill. The district has more than 82,000 students at 184 schools.
Schools in Madison, Janesville, Wisconsin Dells and other districts around Wisconsin are also closed. Teachers and other state union workers are upset that Republican Gov. Scott Walker wants to curtail their collective bargaining rights and is asking them to contribute more to their health insurance and pensions.
According to this article , they're spreading to Ohio, too:
In what union leaders say is becoming a national fight, protests against legislation to restrict public employees' collective-bargaining rights spread from Wisconsin to Ohio.
In a sign of solidarity, teachers are protesting in Michigan , too:
About 40 percent of the West Bloomfield High School teachers didn't show up for work on Feb. 15 in the midst of bitter contract negotiations.
Superintendent JoAnn Andrees said that 41 high school teachers didn't show up and that 36 of those teachers were not within a normal 'pattern' of absences. Andrees said as many as a dozen teachers could be out on a typical day. The Michigan Department of Education said there are about 100 teachers at the high school as of 2009-10.
'Nothing has happened to this degree before,' Andrees said.
The missing classes were filled with substitutes and administrators, as well as other support staff from other buildings, Andrees said.
'I was so impressed with Bloomfield students on this day,' Andrees said. 'Classes went on. Kudos to my kids.'
President Obama and OFA are stoking the pro-union fires. They've already met with fierce resistance in Wisconsin. I'll guarantee that they'll wish they hadn't taken the fight to John Kasich in Ohio. Gov. Kasich is a gentleman most of the time until sharp elbows are required. That's when he's most formidable.
With President Obama fighting for the public unions and against the will of the people, I'll make this prediction: He can write off taking Indiana and Ohio in 2012. He doesn't stand a chance in either state. His going after Gov. Walker in Wisconsin won't exactly endear him to Wisconsin voters, either, though I think he'll still hold that state.
I still think Obama is a one-term president. Siding with unions might be a principled stand but it's pissing people off who've had to scramble to find daycare for their children. It's also pissing off people who are hearing that these teachers are contributing next to nothing for their pensions and their health insurance.
Posted Friday, February 18, 2011 8:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 18-Feb-11 03:44 PM
Workers have no rights? Since when?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Feb-11 04:27 PM
Worker rights aren't unlimited. Someone forgot to tell President Obama & OFA that. They think unions should have the hammer & that the people paying the bills should be the servants. We don't take kindly to that.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 18-Feb-11 04:38 PM
You know those teachers in Wisconsin claim that the governor is Hitler.
If they knew their history they know if this was true the teachers would've been in jail or executed while those Democrat Senators it will be reported in the media had resigned with their replacements being loyal to the governor.
But then again they know squat about American history let alone world history.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
