Quote of the Day
The wisest mind has something yet to learn.
George Santayana
Christie (R-NJ) Wins Major Public Sector Union Reform:
Thumbs UP!
A coalition of Republicans and senior/conservative Democrats, mostly those with local/county financial responsibilities facing deteriorating finances, have passed a series of long overdue reforms including significant increases in contributions to health insurance and pension benefits, reforms to collective bargaining, capping arbitration awards, freezing cost-of-living adjustments, and raising the retirement age. This is estimated to save roughly $4.4B a year as the reforms are phased in over the next 3 decades. We have the usual union entitlement thuggery tactics. I am so sick and tired of the standard progressive doubletalk nonsense: "oh, of course, we understand that everybody needs to sacrifice"; "it's not paying our fair share of benefit costs--it's about collective bargaining", etc. Let us be clear: collective bargaining all boils down to costs. By any standard of professional ethics, Democratic officeholders who accept anything of value from a public union, whether direct funding or its fungible equivalence, e.g., phone banks or other volunteer campaign services, must recuse themselves from any public union-relevant decision. Any or all collective bargaining claims in the public sector are intrinsically suspect: first, the public sector is monopolistic, not competitive; second, if the government is not fairly compensating workers, the worker can join the private sector.
We would know of abusive management practices through existing civil service defined grievance or other processes, legislator complaints, conventional whistleblowing, and/or distinctive patterns of worker attrition. We could also tell from available comparative statistics, including between states without relevant collective bargaining rights. Here's the key point: as usual, unions put a posturing public face acting as if collective bargaining is nothing more than a standard civil service grievance. But work rules and other targets of collective bargaining are little more than negotiating chips for unions to get the maximum payoff at the expense of the taxpayer. Union negotiators are not paid to represent the interests of the American taxpayer. Let me give an example: even if a teacher is alleged to have participated in an inappropriate sexual relationship, there may be paid suspensions and legal costs incurred while a second teacher must be hired and paid. There are high barriers to exit.
Is the agreement perfect? No. Among other things we see a typical legislative matter where some public sector workers (e.g., public safety personnel, teachers, etc.) are considered more equal than others. I think phase-in periods and any relevant grandfathering clauses are inefficient from the standpoint of saving the government money. The devil is in the details; for instance, are there any teaching reform measures (e.g., tenure) in this bill or are those discussions deferred? Caps to pension distributions? What happens to the unfunded liabilities? Has the state made up for past missing contributions to the pension lockbox, and how will these be funded?
The "Seven in Heaven Way" Kerfuffle
I saw this story getting heavy rotation on Fox News the other day, although the story had received prior coverage in the New York City area. Earlier this week I discussed my position on the use of religious language and symbols in public areas: generally speaking, I think that "fair use" or limited and/or inclusive or more general context (e.g., a prayer to God versus a specific reference to Jesus Christ) is constitutionally acceptable. On the other hand, I feel more parochial religious speech, e.g., a reborn Christian testifying to his relationship to Jesus Christ, is inappropriate at a public event, particularly if there are majoritarian restrictions, say, non-Christians expressing their own point of view at a public event, in the sense of allowing only one doctrinal point of view would constitute a de facto endorsement.
A lot of contentious issues are resolved in the context of my view; for example, it is obvious to any reasonable person that things like a Nativity scene, a desert cross, or display of the Ten Commandments do not constitute an endorsement of a particular religious perspective but reflect certain Judaic-Christian symbols relevant to our religious heritage. It's difficult to argue that display of the Ten Commandments is the establishment of a religion. Which religion? Are citizens required to attest to the Ten Commandments?
In NYC, an atheist group is upset because a street has been named "Seven in Heaven Way", a tribute to 7 brave firefighters whom were lost on 9/11. They suggest that the use of the name 'heaven' makes the name offensive to atheists and the de facto establishment of a state religion.
This is dubious in several requests. First, the concept of 'heaven', like 'God', spans across several religions. Second, I would argue that 'heaven' is used in an honorific, not substantive sense. For example, in the Christian doctrine, heaven is awarded only upon the result of a Final Judgment made specifically by God. We have no way of knowing whether a particular person is in heaven. Third, I would argue that it makes no more sense to argue that "Seven in Heaven" constitutes the establishment of religion any more than, say, St. Paul, MN; St. Louis, MO; or Los Angeles, CA.
Bottom line: the atheists have no case. Singling out a word does not constitute a religion; there are multiple definitions, e.g., Galileo surveyed the heavens; Bryan Adams sings when he's with his girl, he's in heaven; when I taste Blue Bell ice cream, I'm in heaven. Just because you don't like a particular word or name doesn't entitle you to censor it.
Political Humor
"President Obama announced this week that he is going to start sending out his own messages personally on Twitter. And today Anthony Weiner said, “It’s a trap, don’t do it!” But President Obama’s tweets are a little different than Anthony Weiner’s. When Obama sends out pictures of something obscene, it’s the unemployment numbers." - Jay Leno
[Yeah, right: Obama limit himself to 140 characters per message? Have you heard him talk? I think he doesn't understand: he probably thinks the first character is Nancy Pelosi, the second character is Harry Reid...]
"Bristol Palin released her much-anticipated memoir called “Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far.” Bristol said that Levi Johnston cheated on her but then made it up to her by buying designer rain boots. Things are different up there, I guess." - Jimmy Kimmel
[Isn't it a little late for Levi Johnston to suddenly think about rubbers?]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "You're Not Alone"
