February 28, 2011
Feb 28 08:54 Taking Back the Vocabulary: Working Families Edition Feb 28 07:26 Milbank's Ignorance Showing Feb 28 10:54 Semantics Doesn't Change Dayton Disaster Reality Feb 28 21:28 Calling Out Leah McLean
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Taking Back the Vocabulary: Working Families Edition
The DFL and other Democrats nationwide, not to mention their union allies, have used the phrase working families instead of union households for years. It's time that they had sole propietorship of that phrase revoked.
While I can't argue that unions work hard (at least most of the time), it's absure to appropriate it solely to union households.
If we truly are to retake the vocabulary so that it actually means something again, we must sarcastically highlight the times when union activists try to make it sound like they're the only people who are for the little guy. Let's highlight the times when union households don't hesitate in stiffing the little guy if it helps their wallets and their political agenda.
Word is spreading that unions aren't looking out for the little guy, at least if the little guy isn't a union member. It's my contention that they're really looking out for themselves and themselves alone.
Did Wisconsin's 'working families' care one iota about taxpayers when their negotiations gave them a series of mini-monopolies? Nope. The city of Milton's school district budget was $33,000,000. In Feb., 2010, the school district's deficit was $850,000. At that point, the city took WEA Trust to arbitration. When the Milton School District won the case, it was reported that the school district would save $1,000,000 per year.
Does anyone not think that that isn't a huge savings to true working families struggling to make ends meet during stressful economic times? Of course that's a big deal.
Let's consider this in context. That's what the unions' show of solidarity is about. That's the right that those 14 fleebagger Wisconsin Democrat senators are fighting for. That's what Minnesota politicians like Gov. Dayton and Rep. Keith Ellison rallied for recently in a 'show of solidarity.'
You'll forgive me if I don't show my solidarity with these politicians as they fight against working families. They think their solidarity is a badge of honor. I'm betting that non-union working families have a substantially different perspective on things.
Posted Monday, February 28, 2011 8:54 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 28-Feb-11 10:02 AM
As my private sector union member father always used to say (complain) about Reagan "less is best for you and more is good for me".
The more these unions fight and cry, the more they will be exposed and the more people be on the side of real working people who are fighting to stay above water in this "age of Obama".
Comment 2 by Chad Quigley at 28-Feb-11 10:03 AM
As my private sector union member father always used to say (complain) about Reagan "less is best for you and more is good for me".
The more these unions fight and cry, the more they will be exposed and the more people will be on the side of real working people who are fighting to stay above water in this "age of Obama".
Milbank's Ignorance Showing
It's no secret that Dana Milbank is one of the most partisan hacks of the Washington Post's columnists. It shouldn't surprise that he's written a column decrying Scott Walker's "unprincipled rigidity ."
In the recorded call, Walker praised a centrist state senator, Tim Cullen, as "about the only reasonable one" among the 14 Democratic legislators who fled the state to deny Walker the quorum he needs to destroy Wisconsin's public-sector unions. But when the fake Koch offered to call Cullen, Walker discouraged him:
"He's pretty reasonable, but he's not one of us...He's not there for political reasons. He's just trying to get something done...He's not a conservative. He's just a pragmatist."
"Just a pragmatist", as if it were an epithet. "Just trying to get something done", as if this were evidence of a character defect.
Actually, being a pragmatist isn't anything to brag about. There once was a time when a different term was used that was something to be proud of. That long-since-vanished term is statesman. The difference between pragmatism and statesmanship is significant.
Pragmatism is defined as an "action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma."
The definition of statesmanship is "the ability, qualifications, or practice of a statesman; wisdom and skill in the management of public affairs."
Notice the difference in qualities? A pragmatist isn't necessarily worried about wisdom or integrity. They're only worried about whether the policy they end up at is palatable to a significant group of people.
I can't help thinking that few people aspire to be pragmatists. I'm confident, however, that lots of people aspire to be statesmen.
Milbank's partisanship is exposed when he said that Gov. Walker isn't principled. Yesterday, Ed highlighted the importance of PEU reform in this post :
When Walker says that the PEU reforms will allow counties, cities, and school districts more latitude in budget cuts, this is what he means. The protesters in Madison have avoided this particular point, perhaps because it exposes one of the real stakes in the fight.
The WEA, perhaps the most powerful union in the state, makes a fortune off of selling its insurance at inflated prices to districts around the state. Milton, for instance, saved $382 per month per employee when it got an arbitrator to agree to end the WEA Trust concession. Spread that around to the thousands of teachers in Wisconsin, and taxpayers can get a pretty good idea what PEU reform might mean in reducing stressed budgets at every level of government in Wisconsin.
Gov. Walker is fighting for the principle that taxpayers shouldn't get ripped off by powerful unions. They're currently getting ripped off because WEA is negotiating district-wide monopolies for their health insurance policies.
Milbank's foolishness shined through when he said "14 Democratic legislators who fled the state to deny Walker the quorum he needs to destroy Wisconsin's public-sector unions." Obviously, Milbank wasn't taught history properly. If he had, he would've heard the lesson about public employee unionization. Furtunately, Katherine Kersten wrote an insightful column on the history of PEU's . Here's what she wrote that Mr. Milbank should've learned:
Here's a quiz: Who said that the prospect of a strike by a government union is "unthinkable and intolerable?"
Who said, "It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government"?
Was it Reagan? Palin? Did Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker utter these provocative words?
No, no and no. The first quote is from Franklin Roosevelt, that champion of working people. The second is from George Meany, the AFL-CIO's legendary first president.
When WEA negotiates a contract, it's negotiating 'against' a school board that it's all but hand-picked. The term incestuous leaps to mind. This isn't an adversarial meeting like what's found in private sector negotiations. Often, the school board and the union have identical goals and identical perspectives.
How can a just settlement arise out of that incestuous relationship? The answer is it can't.
Here's something that Mr. Milbank should learn:
"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create," explained labor expert James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation in the New York Times.
"Government workers, however, don't generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers.'"
I'd modify that last sentence slightly. Here's how I'd modify it: "When government unions strike, they strike against their neighbors."
I wonder if the negotiations might have a different tone if it was between neighbors rather than between union leadership and a friendly school board. I'm betting it'd be significantly different.
That's before considering the fact that federal workers can't strike . They can't even negotiate.
Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a 'right to work zone.' Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues.
I'm betting that Mr. Milbank didn't know that, either. Then again members of the Agenda Media generally don't know much about the government they allegedly cover. That's why people living in the Heartland don't respect 'journalists' like Mr. Milbank.
Posted Monday, February 28, 2011 7:26 AM
No comments.
Semantics Doesn't Change Dayton Disaster Reality
If the DFL is hanging their agenda on Poligraph's study of whether Speaker Zellers' statement is 100 percent accurate, then they're foolish. Here's what's written:
They claim Dayton's proposed $4 billion in new revenue will hurt small businesses, as House Speaker Kurt Zellers pointed out in a Feb. 18, 2011 email to constituents.
"These tax increases will fall disproportionately on job creators," Zellers wrote. "Approximately 92 percent of small businesses pay their taxes through the individual income tax."
Zellers is exaggerating the impact of Dayton's proposal.
Zellers' concern centers on Dayton's proposal to impose a 10.95 percent income tax rate on single filers making more than $85,000 in after tax income and couples making more than $150,000 in after tax income. Those making more than $500,000 in taxable income annually would see an additional 3 percent surtax, making Minnesota's top income tax rate 13.95 percent. GOP legislators, including Zellers, say these income tax hikes will hurt small businesses most.
There are several ways to measure the size of a small business. In some cases, the Small Business Administration (SBA) looks at a firm's annual receipts; in others, it focuses on the number of employees. Regardless, Zellers is correct that about 92 percent pay taxes through the individual return.
But the SBA definitions don't mean much when it comes to taxes because some large companies pay their taxes through the individual return, and some very small companies pay corporate taxes.
Whatever the final determination is is essentially irrelevant. What's relevant is that the drastic tax increases included in the Dayton Disaster will further damage Minnesota's economy.
Quibbling about the Poligraph's study is interesting at most. It doesn't change the fact that Dayton's Disaster won't jumpstart Minnesota's economy. No credible person can argue that policies in Dayton's Disaster will jumpstart Minnesota's private economy.
If people want to quibble over whether Speaker Zellers' statement is 100 percent factually accurate, that's their right. If they'd prefer to work on a solution, however, they won't waste time on this subject.
Anyone arguing that Dayton's Disaster provides the blueprint to a stronger economy will be laughed at mercilessly. Dayton's proposals aren't just a little outside mainstream economic thinking. They're dramatically outside mainstream economic thinking.
Semantics aren't totally unimportant in all instances. They're just unimportant in this instance.
The bigger point that Speaker Zellers successfully made is that Republicans are pursuing policies that will increase entrepreneurship by letting the private sector do what it does best.
Reducing tax and regulatory burdens will dramatically change Minnesota's economy. That's what the GOP legislature is pursuing.
That's the main point to remember.
Posted Monday, February 28, 2011 10:54 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Feb-11 01:54 PM
Almost like they're trying to change the subject, isn't it?
Calling Out Leah McLean
Tonight, during the 6:30 news on KSTP, Leah McLean did a segment on the improved budget situation here in Minnesota. During that segment, she mentioned that a federal government shutdown might have an adverse effect on Minnesota's deficit situation.
That's something that I'd heard earlier in the day so I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Then she got my undivided attention.
She said that there might be a federal government shutdown because Republicans were thinking about cutting Social Security and Medicare.
With all due respect, that's utter nonsense. First off, neither of those entitlements have gotten discussed in connection with the CR. Second, neither of those entitlements have gotten discussed outside of the Debt Commission's report.
I'd love knowing who Ms. McLean's source was for this reporting. It certainly wasn't anyone who's taken seriously.
I've seen DFL/liberal schills in the Twin Cities' media before but I've never heard even Lori Sturdevant make this reckless of a statement.
I won't label McLean a DFL/liberal shill just because of this statement but I haven't ruled that out either.
Posted Monday, February 28, 2011 9:28 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 28-Feb-11 10:40 PM
While I am partial to KSTP's local news, I tune out all local coverage of national and international events. Nothing personal. It's just not their core competency and there are many better sources, including LFR!
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 01-Mar-11 08:07 AM
Gary:
The media consider a fax from a democrat group to be a legitimate news source. Don't you know that?
It will be nice to know who wrote the fax she used.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Larry David at 16-May-11 10:35 PM
If you look at who she follow on Twitter your shill theory seems plausible. Check it out.
Comment 4 by Larry David at 16-May-11 10:35 PM
If you look at who she follow on Twitter your shill theory seems plausible. Check it out.
Comment 5 by Anonista at 07-Jan-12 09:26 PM
McLean is a bona fide conservative like most everyone else hired by Hubbard- a HUGE contributor to Michele Bachmann types.
KSTP leans way to the right - consistently. You can't work there unless you agree to push the conservative agenda...common knowledge. Everyone knows it. Hauser doesn't have to hide it
Neither does Leah or the guy with the funny forehead. KSTP is your one-stop shop for righty news.
