When written in Chinese the word "crisis" is composed of two characters
one represents danger and the other represents opportunity.
John F. Kennedy
Public Unions v Walker:
Judge Conley's WI Act 10 Decision
I'm not a natural political strategist like Karl Rove (although my recent post recommending that Mitt Romney nominate Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as his VP seems to have emerged as my second most popular post of the year, second only to my Valentine Day's post). There's a part of me that is pragmatic, but at the same time hard-headed.
For example, I served a temporary production Apps DBA role in a company whose corporate DBA had resigned to join a consulting company. I almost immediately realized that the accountants were using "green screen" interfaces that had been decertified by Oracle several months earlier and no significant product megapatch had been applied in over 2 years (beyond my predecessor's tenure), materially violating Oracle's support agreement. I successfully lobbied company management to do the patches. There were a couple of minor technical issues I quickly resolved (e.g., an undocumented customized payroll check overwritten by a patch, which had automatically archived the old payroll check), but the accountants, unhappy that I was lobbying the comptroller to have them use the supported GUI interface (which they griped was unusable), started fear-mongering about this DBA incompetently implementing rogue Oracle patches. (I had a subsequent conversation with the predecessor; he lamely claimed that he had brought up the same issues, but management refused to approve the patching.) The accountants continued their passive-aggressive attacks, blaming all subsequent unrelated technical issues to the patching, and managers get tired of the constant squabbling (even if they explicitly approved the decision in question). What I'm discussing is classic resistance to change; for example, existing workers may see changes to the status quo as a threat to their job security. What happens? A lot depends on the integrity of management. All a change agent can do is make his case: if Oracle wouldn't resolve a production bottleneck issue because we were running desupported software, it constituted a business risk. (As I recall, I had to cancel travel plans back to Chicago so I could do the patches, and my billable hours were capped, meaning I was doing the production patches for free.)
Before going any further, don't confuse what I'm writing about a change agent with Obama's Presidency. I have little doubt that a narcissistic Obama pictures himself as a political martyr and imagines himself as the target of a "vast right wing conspiracy". I know that Obama constantly used the term "change" in the 2008 campaign; it is clear that Bush was unpopular, and the public wanted a change from Bush--but a change from Bush hardly constituted the mandate for a left-wing agenda in a right-center country: the results from the 2010 election are abundantly clear.
One certainly cannot argue that the Democrats ran on odious convoluted sausage making partisan health care and financial "reforms" by the 111th Congress, hardly read by the Democrats whom voted for them in 2010, never mind the voters of 2008--and Obama took little, if any political risk on either score: these weren't HIS plans.
What would be more of a change agent on politics? Let's look at the record: Obama inherited massively underfunded entitlement programs (Bush did make a failed half-hearted attempt to reform social security, but Medicare was a worse problem, and he added an unpaid-for prescription benefit), the largest increases of domestic programs in decades, an exploding federal deficit and two unsustainable foreign occupations. (Bush came closest in terms of social security reform, but he badly underestimated rather predictable resistance to change.)
Obama has never been a change agent like I was; I initially only had a 5-week subcontract with my client. They were trying to recruit a perm Apps DBA to replace my predecessor. I wasn't getting paid extra to handle this problem; I simply had to hold down the fort. But I had a professional obligation; if anyone knows what it's like to deal with Oracle Tech Support, I do; the client was living on borrowed time.
Obama can't argue that he wasn't aware of the problem with massive deficits; in fact, he promised to significant cut down the Bush deficits. (Note: I don't buy the mainstream media's attempts to pin the FY2009 deficit on Bush; the Democrats passed the omnibus budget and stimulus bill AFTER Obama took office. All FY2009 spending was approved by a Democratic-controlled Congress, and Obama was President for over two-thirds of that fiscal year. (Treasury's Debt to the Penny shows roughly $500B ($10.1T to $10.6T) under Bush's FY2009 tenure.))
A true change agent would not hasten the day of reckoning for unsustainable government; he would initiate a paradigm shift from profligate government to a restoration of unalienable rights, traditional American virtues, and a limited, core government.
Now what does all this have to do with the court case?
Scott Walker and the Wisconsin state GOP-controlled legislature made a key error that I immediately recognized all the time, which to this date I regard as one of the stupidest moves I've ever seen in politics. No, I'm not referring to taking on public sector unions and especially not long-overdue collective bargaining reforms.
I'm referring to the the special deal Scott Walker cut to exempt public safety officers from the same reform policies--probably without their knowledge or consent, probably a political payoff for their support of his gubernatorial candidacy in the 2010 election. The public safety unions immediately knew that they were in an untenable situation: from their perspective, Walker's intent would be viewed by workers as a conscious attempt to divide and conquer the union movement, that the other unions would accuse them of enabling the election of union buster and selling out for an exemption. Small wonder when the union protests erupted in Madison, the police and fire union memberships were front and center.
Scott Walker can rationalize a double standard in favor of public sector unions which (until Act 10) supported him any way he wants, but even to libertarian-conservatives like me whom believe in the right to work, his position comes across as less principled and more like a political deal.
The good news is that Obama-nominated Judge Conley mostly upheld the Act; the equal protection violation gave him cover to invalidate a couple of right to work reforms involving annual certification and automatic dues collection. I would encourage the Wisconsin legislature to amend the act to make the reforms apply to public safety unions. (I expect the Democrats would hypocritically oppose this, because in essence the judge gave them political cover to retain the same exemptions now for the other public sector unions.) I think the GOP has and will already pay a political price from the public safety unions whether or not they remedy the act to strip the exemption.
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought Judge Conley's language referencing the volatile political situation is unconscionable and will not withstand judicial scrutiny. I'm not sure why, instead of simply striking the public safety exemption, he seems to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and invalidated provisions restoring individual worker economic rights from negative right violations by the tyrannical union plurality. (I would need to whitebox the legal case he's making.)
Hearing unions argue the case as an infringement of First Amendment rights is laughably absurd. Any Wisconsin citizen, including public sector workers, has the right to address any necessary reforms to civil service policies in Wisconsin law. If unions have the right to deduct dues to finance a leftist political agenda against the wishes of many, if not most of the rank and file, why shouldn't corporations have the right to deduct employee dues to finance a pro-liberty political agenda?
There is an intrinsic conflict between taxpayers, whom seek to minimize unnecessary, unsustainable spending and tax burden in fulfilling core public service objectives, and unions, which seek to enlarge, compensate and protect membership in ways which constrain public policymaker and administration options to control costs and improve outcomes.
Stossel's Reflections on Educational Reforms
I will always marvel that somehow a rare libertarian voice like John Stossel's emerged from of the wasteland of national news networks. Stossel has a way of presenting his material and handling his interviews without coming across as ideological or strident.
The first takeaway is a comment Stossel makes near the ending of the first video below, noting ironically, even if we attain educational diversity in K-12 (e.g., charter schools), we still have a single-payer system, the long-sought goal of progressive health care reformers.
I remember I once had a roommate in Houston, a friend from Catholic Newman whom repeated the same old same old public school propaganda that private schools (like Catholic schools) are more effective because they skim the cream off the top of the good students while the public schools are left with the impossible students that they have to take, can't expel, etc. On that issue, let us recall a 2007 Wall Street Journal column:
High graduation rates are a constant at most Catholic schools, but St. Joseph's is unique even within the parochial system: It is the only area Catholic school that has an "open enrollment policy," accepting "any child regardless of faith, academic ability or emotional stability." This is not, as some advocates of the government-run public system would have you believe, a school that is skimming the cream of the crop.
New York's Catholic schools have always been a beacon of hope for the poor, but it's been a long time since they were staffed by nuns. About 19% of students receive financial aid, and the full tuition of $2,750 per student still falls short of the $3,868 annual cost to give one child a basic education. Add to this any necessary capital improvements, as well as [miscellaneous programs].We have often seen disingenuous bait-and-switch arguments by liberals/progressives before: we're never cutting bloated public school bureaucracies: we're cutting teachers in the classroom; we're not talking about shutting down the preponderance of money-losing USPS branches: we're talking about thinly-populated barely accessible areas getting their periodic mail drop at a subsidized cost (unlike the rest of their private-economy goods and services...) The public schools would have you believe all that extra money the monopolists are spending go to the handling of hoodlums and special-needs students, not an unsustainable business model! I attended both types of schools, and I can tell you from my own experience that the kids are the same: no better, no worse.
Going back to the WSJ column, we know it takes a lot of money to run a parish; the collection basket is optional; a number of contributors can afford only very modest amounts. So how can parishes meet the financial burden of money-losing schools? Public school advocates would be astonished at some of the donors, many of whom give anonymously:
Philanthropist and retired hedge-fund manager Robert W. Wilson said he is giving $22.5 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program for needy inner-city students attending Roman Catholic schools. Wilson, 80, said in a phone interview today that although he is an atheist, he has no problem donating money to a fund linked to Catholic schools. "Without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization. Keep in mind, I'm helping to pay tuition. The money isn't going directly to the schools.''I'm not sure my mom, whom graduated from a Catholic high school, would agree with the cream-skimming argument. She still talks about the time that my second grade teacher asked me if I wanted to lead in prayer one day, and I said, "No, thanks." (I thought that the teacher was asking about my preference and didn't recognize the subtlety, but my teacher was upset enough to tell my Mom--whom takes her religion very seriously.) And then I still remember once talking back to an older student and found myself literally getting my mouth washed out with soap by one of the nuns/sisters. I don't recall the specifics; it had something to do with respecting the older student's authority (nothing to do with profanity). I still remember the taste of soap between my teeth. Not recommended.
However, most of my Catholic education occurred between grades 2 through 4, and my experience is more anecdotal than empirical. I had some good teachers in both Catholic and public schools; the biggest differences (besides wearing uniforms and a modest amount of religious education) were that the Catholic schools were far more disciplined and no nonsense and I think Mom got significantly more feedback from Catholic schools.
I admire Michelle Rhee (second interview clip), the former DC superintendent, whom fought the good fight and talks about the politically radioactive step of sharply cutting the nonproductive administrative layer (that earns her a gold star in my list of change agents). However, I would like the conventional conversation to go beyond things like vouchers and charter schools. Public schools already face financial constraints; just imagine if Catholic schools, typically subsidized by already tight parish finances, or other private schools were no longer available, and/or financially-struggling families could no longer afford the double hit of being captive taxpayers supporting an ineffective public school system and paying for private education. No doubt the public school monopolists would initially cheer the demise of educational choice: the teacher unions would be giddy over the anticipated swelling of their captive ranks--just think of all those dues! And then they would get up the next morning and realize the financial reality of what just happened: private school parents have been subsidizing, propping up an unsustainable public education model. Be really careful of what you wish for.
I would be more philosophically consistent (in the sense Stossel suggests in the first video as I explained above). Let me give a few ideas just to get the conversation started. (Warning: exposure to this discussion may cause public school teachers union reps' heads to explode.)
- First, let's vest parents in public education by charging user fees. (Fees can be means-tested.)
- Second, let's ensure that each parent of a public school student is informed of the availability of a publicly-subsidized private school option. (I look at what the progressives tried to do with health care reform and asked, why can't we do the same type thing to public school reform? Thank you, Nancy Pelosi, for being the inspiration for this idea.)
- Third, in honor of Democrats' amazing idea to force health care providers with a necessary incentive to improve efficiency, why don't we apply the same ideas of efficiency to bloated public school budgets? We'll automatically cut the public school teacher budget by 10% each year to motivate superintendents and teacher unions to become more operationally efficient (after all, we can't hypocritically apply different standards to private-sector health care providers and public-sector educational monopoly providers, can we?) Each year we can have the local school district come up with a "teacher fix".... (Thank you, US Congress, for being the inspiration for this idea...)
A Belated Tribute to the 53%
Whom Pay Federal Income Taxes
And Don't Feel Entitled
And Don't Complain
And Don't Covet Their Neighbors' Goods
I don't know the young lady below, but she is truly beautiful, inside and out; other young people like her give me confidence in the future of America. Some people--finger-pointing politicians and protesters--do nothing constructive with their unalienable rights and God's privilege of being born in America. Others practice the virtues.
I don't begrudge the success of others; I'm not a millionaire (not even close). Everyone knows that Microsoft's Bill Gates is the richest man in America. But did you realize that there are two other Microsoft billionaires and over 12,000 Microsoft millionaires? Perhaps the 12,000 millionaires aren't billionaires (yet): but because Bill Gates and Paul Allen had a business idea and did the hard work in making the business a success, they were able to participate in that success. If the wealthy have the bulk of their net worth vested in the economy, others benefit from their success, their goods and services. I prefer the judgments and investments of the proven economically successful in the private sector to an empty suit career politician whom couldn't start a business or balance a budget to save his life but imagines himself to be the incarnation of Robin Hood.
 |
| Sample Photo Story Submission to We Are the 53% |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Doobie Brothers, "Take Me In Your Arms (Rock Me A Little While)"
