Quote of the Day
He who is firm in will molds the world to himself.
Johann Gottlieb
Only in California
I haven't written about California in a while--but what amazes is me is a "feel good" story carried in the LA Times getting favorable publicity isn't so good from my point of view. On the surface, it sounds good: 63-year-old former civics teacher and Fresno County superintendent Larry Powell officially retired for a day last week, essentially giving up about 87% plus benefits of his $235K annual salary contractually obligated through 2014, placed by a $31K salary with no benefits. Oh, and Larry Powell intends to give his new salary away to charity. Other personal facts are intriguing: he is also a Baptist minister, he had polio as a child, and he is a paid motivational speaker on the side.
There are these factors: Powell's wife is a retired former principal and Powell still qualifies for health care coverage through her plan. The newspaper doesn't tell us how much Dot Powell clears in retirement, but what they do tell us is that Larry Powell has qualified for the highest amount under the California teacher retirement system of a $200K/year pension.
Some skeptics suggest that Powell's real motive is to lock in a grandfathered entitlement to his lucrative pension before any substantive pension reform passes. In a state where GOP Presidential candidates are running 20 percentage points behind Obama, whom is struggling to keep his job approval ratings nationwide just north of 40%, I'm not holding my breath.
I do not see any legitimate basis to pay any public educator north of $100K, regardless of a Master's or above in education (not worth the paper it's printed on) or responsibility level. There are so many problems here, including the public school monopoly, benefits like retiree health care and pensions which simply are not available to the vast majority of workers in the private sector--period. How you can pay someone each year in retirement the salary equivalent of 4 to 5 full-time, tax-paying teachers is utterly incomprehensible; it can only be explained by corrupt bargains between public unions and Democrat legislators and governors at the expense of the American taxpayer.
I don't doubt that CEO compensation in the private sector is unjust, at the expense of stockholders. But there's a big difference: except for monopolies (e.g., utilities), I don't have to pay a private sector company's goods or services. When I was a California resident (I did not relocate there willingly; there were business reasons) I had no choice but to pay unreasonable California taxes--California even taxed me on Roth IRA conversion installments not even reflecting California base income: to pay for monopolistic compensation where the conventional wisdom is that teachers are "underpaid". Why in the world a single retired California public official receives more than, say, the highest social security check (under $30K) per year, I haven't got a clue. Even if I was legally entitled to more, I would find it morally bankrupt to accept money at the expense of viable public services.
I do praise Powell for apparently not filing yet for $200K/year in retirement pay. No doubt in the arcane world of California finances, paying someone $235K a year when he's entitled to $200K in retirement income really means you're only really paying $35K for a working superintendent anyway.
But on top of everything else, I noted one thing that the paper totally ignored: you might think that hundreds of thousands of dollars, added to the Fresno discretionary spending account, might be used to shore up the balance sheet, set up a rainy day fund, or provide much-needed relief to taxpayers. However noble Powell's actions, it's very clear from context that he does NOT see what I see: it's not HIS money; it's the taxpayers' money. The fact that progressives can find 101 ways to spend the taxpayers' money does not surprise me. It is, after all, California that we are talking about...
The Curious Case of Jerry Lewis and the MDA Telethon
Eighty-five-year-old comedian Jerry Lewis first started doing the telethon in 1966 and he has been its national chairman since 1952. I have not heard the reason why Jerry Lewis chose this cause; the last thing I heard was that it was still a secret. Maybe he was touched by a relative or a fan whom suffered from this tragic condition? Whatever the motivation, I applaud this good man's tireless support which has facilitated the collection of nearly $2.5B in support for various programs and research initiative.
To me, the Jerry Lewis telethon, in my view the prototypical telethon, became a holiday fixture, not unlike the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade or the New Year's Tournament of Roses Parade. At minimum, I would turn it on, even if just to watch a few minutes of coverage. So during the early morning hours on Labor Day I was scanning to see which network on my cable was covering it--and I couldn't find it. I was very confused and then read up on the recent kerfuffle.
Apparently, among other things, the network of affiliated television stations was beginning to balk at 21 hours of constant coverage and this year it was shortened to 6 hours. Earlier this year in May Jerry Lewis announced this would be his last hosted telethon but he would continue on as national chairman; in future years, he would appear at the end of the telethon to warble his signature "You'll Never Walk Alone". Then last month, it was announced that Jerry Lewis would not be host or appear on the telethon and was no longer its national chairman, just shy of 60 years. The MDA did not have time to name a new host; there was apparently some attempt by a co-hosting American Idol producer to claim that Lewis had passed the baton to him on a prior telethon. The telethon paid lip service to Jerry Lewis in the last hour of the telecast and made a face-saving claim that Lewis had retired from MDA.
Probably one thing rubbing Lewis' nose in it was the fact that MDA reported a year-over-year increase in donations despite the shorter format and not even as much as a cameo appearance from Jerry Lewis. Note that my style is somewhat different than Lewis' which has sometimes been described as "mawkish" or "histrionic". I think that there was some dissatisfaction with the use of poster children and a rather unsophisticated presentation of MDA research which has significant changed over the past several years. However, one cannot argue with Lewis' phenomenal accomplishments in fundraising. In fact, my baby sister helped work the phones several years back while she worked for a middle-tier accounting firm. No doubt many supporters thought it was time for a change.
I don't know what happened between May and August for MDA to make the changes it did; I haven't seen any official explanation. Perhaps Lewis wanted to retain the now familiar 21 hour format rather than change to an abbreviated format in his swan song. But I think it would have been classier to let Jerry Lewis complete his 6th decade as national chairman and to appear the final time as host. There's no way to finesse what happened, and Jerry Lewis deserves better after 45 years of serving the cause.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Air Supply, "Here I Am"
