Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Sickness in Wisconsin

From National Review Online

That flu is still going around: The teachers of Madison, Wis., have called in “sick” again, shutting down the schools. Of course, there is no flu, and the only sickness is a nasty unionism, an epidemic of lying.

I wonder how these teachers — I’m tempted to put that word in quotation marks: “teachers” — can look themselves in the mirror. How can their students look at them the same way again? I will repeat what I said (twice, I think) yesterday: I wish the public could call in sick on the teachers. I wish these people could be fired, in favor of people who want to teach, think it a privilege to do so, and will operate honestly.


(Of course, they must include the obligatory Hitler comparison...which is more ludicrous than ever considering how the great majority on the left views Israel)



What if students called in sick, en masse, on the day of a test? They could say, “Well, we learned from the adults standing in front of us: our dear, ever-conscientious teachers.”

Well-off parents have a choice, of course: They can send their kids to private schools where teachers, when they call in sick, are generally sick. Schools that don’t shut down whenever teachers happen to feel aggrieved. But ordinary people have no choice: The teachers’ unions have blocked it for them. You are stuck with an education system monopolized by these unions, whether you like it or not.

In my view, this system, whatever its other flaws, is also mean. Plain mean.

I’ve received a crush of mail from Wisconsin, from various perspectives, saying various things. Some letters are from teachers who feel agonized: They don’t like what the governor and his allies are doing, but they are appalled by the way their union is behaving: both the “sick-ins” — or are they “sick-outs”? — and the thuggish rallying, in which students themselves are coerced to participate.

Most disgusting: the mob that went to Governor Walker’s home. What are they going to do next, cut his dog’s throat?

The teachers in Madison and elsewhere have decided that there will be no more school this week. They have decided that all by themselves. They have simply locked students — whose parents are probably taxpayers — out of their own classrooms.

And everything the teachers do, of course, is for the sake of “the children.” I wish the children could talk back, borrowing a phrase from anti-war movements: “Not in my name.”

For decades now, union militancy has dragged the teaching profession through the mud, robbing that profession of its public spirit, even of its professionalism. (Can we drop the pretense that the marauders at Walker’s home are “professionals”? Professional bullies, maybe.) Normally, I don’t like the rhetoric of “take back”: “take back” this, “take back” that. But maybe it is time for people at large to take back society from the public-employee unions. You can sense that spirit in New Jersey and Wisconsin, quite strongly. Sheer necessity — budgetary necessity — has driven these states to it.

Via my friend Scott Johnson at Power Line, I found this column by Patrick McIlheran in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. McIlheran writes,

“Union activists in Madison Tuesday spoke apocalyptically of ‘class war,’ hinting wildly at general strikes and takeovers of the Capitol. They correctly see their control of the state slipping and must figure that if they bring 13,000 shouting people to Madison, they can overrule the election.”

“They correctly see their control of the state slipping” — what sweet words. I hope that Governor Walker and other elected officials can stay strong. They have an opportunity to restore sanity to our public affairs and to reassert self-government: by the people, for the people, and all that jazz. I will make the simple point that society belongs to everyone: not just to people who can yell, shut down schools, and intimidate.

As usual, they left their trash behind too. Better hire some union workers to clean up after them...

31 comments:

  1. And these asses went to the governor's house!.

    I think the average person is getting awfully fed up with the union thugs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think so too, florrie. I heard today that only 7% of workers are union. Only 7%? If that's true, why are we allowing these thugs to call the shots? What about the other 93% of us? Why the hell should we pay for their fat paychecks and fatter benefits, only to hear them whine and bitch?

    The crap going on in Wisconsin makes me very angry. If the unions refuse to sit down at the table and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, I hope the Wisconsin governor goes Reagan on them, and fires the fools.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are so right, lady red.

    When I saw these demonstrations - which they have a perfect right to do - it made me wonder "where are the people who support what their governor is doing?".

    The silent majority needs to make some noise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is one line of narrative that needs to get shut down: that Walker is "anti-union".

    Real unions organize workers against the interests of capital.

    Capital itself is property and is protected by law: common, statutory and natural.

    The return on capital is not protected - nor should it be - and labor interests and capital interests can negotiate, strike, lock out, etc, as they see fit. That's freedom.

    [Sometimes the decisions taken are idiotic and self defeating, but neither labor nor capital has a long-run monopoly on stupidity, although lately labor seems to have taken more than its fair share of stupid decision. But freedom is nothing if not the freedom to be stupid.]

    Public employee unions organize labor, not against capital, but against the citizens. This isn't freedom, it's treason.

    The citizens are sovereign. The State is the embodiment and the instrument of that sovereignty. Whoever organizes against the citizens is an enemy of the State.

    Actually, even FDR understood this and spoke out against the creation of public employee unions.

    The line between public and private employee unions gets crossed when the government intervenes in private markets to penalize capital and reward unions - e.g. GM.

    Not to say the current ruling class has any "class consciousness" - it's happy to side with some capital (GE, Apple, Boeing, Google... and most of Wall St) against other property owners (the rest of us).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I notice Obama had a meeting today with tech corporations, and that both Google and Facebook were represented at the executive level.

    Now, keep this in mind, and consider that AI has advanced to the point where an IBM supercomputer defeated two past champions - not of chess, but Jeopardy. Think about what kind of analysis and reasoning computers are capable of today, and the mass of data they can handle.

    Think of the mass of data which Google and Facebook could unlock for fellow "progressive" political leaders who invoke the "national interest" and offer protected status.

    It's funny - the Tea Party has no real public leaders (or rather a plethora) - but in reality, it does have a leadership, consisting of a cadre of individuals who are the most influential. It's just that it's always changing, and nobody really knows who they are - even the real "leaders" likely don't know how influential they are.

    With the Google/Facebook dataset, and sophisticated AI analysis, you could find those leaders in a heartbeat.

    It might be that the only people with the real, up-to-date "org chart" of the Tea Party are Obama's people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ah, but I'm probably a paranoid wingnut, right... oh wait, lookie here:

    In January, investors were said to have put a value of about $50 billion on Facebook, the social network founded by Mark Zuckerberg. If revolutions for freedom rest on the shoulders of Facebook, Mr. [Eben] Moglen said, the revolutionaries will have to count on individuals who have huge stakes in keeping the powerful happy.

    “It is not hard, when everybody is just in one big database controlled by Mr. Zuckerberg, to decapitate a revolution by sending an order to Mr. Zuckerberg that he cannot afford to refuse,” Mr. Moglen said.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scary stuff lewy. Maybe Eck-bay isn't so crazy after all?

    The public workers who marched on Wisconsin's capital should be ashamed, IMHO. What is this, f*cking Greece? The best paid workers in the country are taking over the capital building in a stunning display of idiocy, and half the politicians run away to another state?

    These people are nothing but sheep, blindly regurgitating what their union masters tell them. I damn sure don't want sheep in classroom teaching our children, or working in the public sector at all. Ptooey on the lot of them!

    If they don't want to work, I'm sure Governor Walker can fill their cushy position in three seconds flat. Let the bastards stand in the unemployment line for a few months/years, and see how the other half lives. :-L

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Wall Street Journal weighs in:

    "The larger reality is that collective bargaining for government workers is not a God-given or constitutional right. It is the result of the growing union dominance inside the Democratic Party during the middle of the last century. John Kennedy only granted it to federal workers in 1962 and Jerry Brown to California workers in 1978. Other states, including Indiana and Missouri, have taken away collective bargaining rights for public employees in recent years, and some 24 states have either limited it or banned it outright.

    And for good reason. Public unions have a monopoly position that gives them undue bargaining power. Their campaign cash—collected via mandatory dues—also helps to elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions. The unions sit, in effect, on both sides of the bargaining table. This is why such famous political friends of the working man as Franklin Roosevelt and Fiorello La Guardia opposed collective bargaining for government workers, even as they championed private unions.

    The battle of Mad Town is a seminal showdown over whether government union power can be tamed, and overall government reined in. The alternative is higher taxes until the middle class is picked clean and the U.S. economy is no longer competitive. Voters said in November that they want reform, and Mr. Walker is trying to deliver. We hope Republicans hold firm, and that the people of Wisconsin understand that this battle is ultimately about their right to self-government."

    ReplyDelete
  9. The distinction between various "public sector" unions has forever been blurred, intentionally IMO.

    Number one among they not-even-near items is mandatory membership ... for federal employees, no way, Jose. It is voluntary. Federal employees have no-where-near the "rights", let alone the benefits, these state unions appear to have acquired.

    Next, these "service" and "teacher" unions have never really pulled a wrench or worked a line, where even to take a leak you must raise you hand ... literally. I do NOT consider these service unions as even slightly similar to "Labor Unions." Maybe it's just me.

    Gotta side with the Wisconsin Governor on this one ... he's dealing with a bunch of spoiled assholes.

    ReplyDelete

  10. If they don't want to work, I'm sure Governor Walker can fill their cushy position in three seconds flat. Let the bastards stand in the unemployment line for a few months/years, and see how the other half lives.


    That's what I'm hoping for too, lady red. I think the governor could also declare a state of emergency and that would void the teacher's union contracts?

    A lot of good information and analysis there, lewy, lady red & Aridog, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lewy # 7 ....

    You too? I am stunned by the quick popularity of Facebook, Twitter, et al ... but Facebook in particular.

    Facebook may just be the biggest invasion of personal privacy ever contrived ... and people volunteer to be shown with no clothes, to boot. Wow!

    Come the day it causes all these "great communicators" pain, I can only imagine the whining and howling to the moon that will ensue ... waaaagh, my rights have been stolen? Sob. Sniffle. Anguished demands that the government intercede ...oh, wait, it IS the government persecuting me. Waaaagh ! SOB!

    No fool, you g-a-v-e them away to Facebook ... a.k.a "Grifters R' Us", the newest government NGO. Ta Da.

    As for that "value" of $50 Billion ... based on speculation, nothing more ... less substantial than a mega sub-prime McMansion piled Credit Default Swap, IMO. Other views may differ ...'specially Mssr. Mark's.

    "Twitter?" ... uh, never gave that a moments thought ... the IT equivalent of serial farting in the elevator.

    This all is almost as funny as "Pom Wonderful" ... makes limp things hard and dry thing wet....Hooah!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lady Red ..."Eckbay" isn't crazy, or even wrong all the time, he's just sanctimonious (and getting rich) ... I swear, just his black board schtick is irritating ... "talking down" much? I might agree with him often, but I'd still love to see him get his smarmy arse kicked. He IS the live incarnation of the patent "Twerp" (or at least his "act" is ... )

    Oh, please... spare us ... or at least me.

    imgw:"http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2010/03/glenn-beck-tin-foil-hat-thumb.jpg"

    imgw:"http://thefastertimes.com/nonsensenews/files/2010/03/behindthescenesglennbeckflv-300x225.jpg"

    imgw:"http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/70756926-jared-loughner.jpg"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey, guys ... if I seem "down" on a lot of popular media faces it is simply because IMO they all lie ... both sides.

    This 2012 Budget thing is funny in what it reveals: Anticipated FICA revenues = $659 Billion, with projected outlays of $761 Billion ..OMG!! A shortfall!! A deficit!! Social Security must be whacked up, hurry...OMG, OMG.

    Er, yes...and WHY? Well lesh shee heah ... could it be the 32+% employee portion of FICA payroll tax cut, equivalent of a 16+% cut of total FICA vis a vis Social Security.

    Hmmmm. ... multiply anticipated revenues under the cut by 1.16 and voila!! $764 Billion ... dang! A $ 3 Billion Surplus ...quick, now "Earmark it!"

    The sad thing is those figures appear in the front pages of the Wall Street Journal ... and the anomaly is mentioned no where in the articles. Not a word...even with all the Hoo Hah about the urgency of Social Security revisions because revenues (allegedly) soon won't match outlays (...e.g., Treasury may not be able to service its debt to SSA)...we have CUT the source of FICA income by 16%!? Even if for just one year, WHAT is the "Logic" behind the dang thing?

    Sadly, it has been posed as a (tax holiday) "stimulus" by the Congress and the White House. In other words ...sucker bait.

    Worse, the WSJ has also cited the budget deficit as partially caused by "declining revenues" in 2011 and 2012 based upon extension of existing tax rate structure. Pray tell me how sustaining a tax rate causes *declining revenues*, all other things held equal? IOW ... the revenue hasn't been there for over 8 years now ...so how can that "decline?"

    Okay, I'll go away now ... feel like some LSD to get a clear head about now.

    Ahhhh ...

    imgw:"http://www.hookupsportfishing.com/forum/attachments/southern-california-saltwater-message-board/22724d1289660209-i-need-some-salt-b_crazy_dude.jpg"

    ReplyDelete
  15. Florie # 16 ... yeah, I liked my #13 best, too :D

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sigh, I blame advanced age. I meant #12, Aridog.

    Wandering off now....

    (Actually, I pretty much agree with your opinion on Beck too except I don't think the comparison with the crazy murderer is fair. I think Eck Bay is overly emotional and gets too preachy. I'm also tired of hearing him refer to himself as a "rodeo clown" or "recovering alcoholic".
    Plus he's a wussy when it comes to medical procedures.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually, the comparison to Loughner is *graphic* more than anything else ... the similar features are surprising. I didn't mean to equate the Becksterman in any other way ... except perhaps to point out that his public *persona* is a bit loony and he might want to change that.

    He's another very similar *featured* loon(take away the hair and whoa!)...

    imgw:"http://reddogreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pelosi-smile2.jpg"

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pray tell me how sustaining a tax rate causes *declining revenues*, all other things held equal?

    It's a technicality. The original "Bush tax cuts" expired at the end of 2010 - sunset provisions. The official budget / deficit estimates therefore assumed the revision to the previously higher tax rates as the "baseline".

    So when the cuts were extended, revenue declined.

    Alles klar? :D

    Oh, and I still say Social Security, being a defined benefit program, is a Ponzi - a special subset of Ponzi which I'd call a "contingent Ponzi".

    Meaning, the government has contingent liabilities if the investment returns on the payroll tax paid into the fund are insufficient to cover the defined benefits.

    For the purposes of discussion, I'll ignore the fact that the "assets" which the SS fund invests in are Treasury securities (public debt) - they count as assets in a pension balance sheet.

    Also ignore the fact that the SS fund is tipping right now from surplus into deficit - it's not running out of money; it's just the accumulated surplus is being paid out. This is at least partially a function of demographics and is not in and of itself a problem - prior surpluses can be paid down and the program might still be "in the black" (returns on investments exceeding defined benefits).

    The heart of the problem is that I don't believe that current returns on investments (compounded interest on US Treasuries) will be sufficient to cover the benefits. I base this on the absurdly low Treasury rates of the last decade or so and the near certain explosion of real inflation (SS benefits have COLA built in). Real returns on Treasuries suck, and everyone knows it. The "market" is being manipulated, out in the open, every damn day of the week (Google "POMO"). First the Chinese central bank was the manipulator in chief, now Bernanke is.

    So when contingent liabilities in the form of government guarantees of a defined benefit become actual liabilities, then yeah, that will be a cost.

    I believe this will occur when the some SS recipients actually start drawing more than they put in (accounting for the compounding of their implicit Treasury security investment). This may happen before the SS surplus is exhausted.

    IMHO this is a "cost". Contingent liabilities, once realized, are costs.

    If we wait till the SS surplus is exhausted, it will be too late to do anything remotely fair or reasonable.

    So the promises should start being broken now, in an orderly way. IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I can't resist ... here's a quickie rough cut :D ...

    img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/aridog/pelosi-smile2.jpg?t=1298120191" img:"http://www.politicolnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/LoughnerMugshot.jpg"

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lewy said: "It's a technicality."

    Right. I planned to earn $1 Million in 2012, but since I retired in 2005 I won't make it ..e.g., my 2012 income has *declined* from my 2010 income? Ah ha! All clear now ... :D

    No, what has declined is an *estimate,* income has stayed relatively the same everything else being equal.

    If that is what they mean, say it that way ... e.g., "The previously forecast revenues have decreased due to extension of nearly decade old tax reductions." Ordinary men and women are capable of understanding plain English spoken plainly, not *technically."

    I'm sorry my accounting background, such as it is or was, tells me this manipulation of words is intentional and intended to deceive. Joe Sixpack reads that stuff and thinks: "Oh, my, federal revenues have actually declined!" Thus, after appropriate time lapse, ole Joe is ready and amenable to the butt goring tax increase & benefit decrease heading his way.

    Same issue with the terms *cost* and *expense* ... I'd guess about 8 out of 10 regular folks today think they mean the same thing in financial terms. That's the result of the word bending and smudging I object to ... see the payroll paid to government road builders or firemen are *costs* ..e.g., they underwrite provision of an infrastructure asset or defined service. The payrolls paid the Mayor's or Congressman's staff are *expenses* as they cannot be ascribed directly to provision of a specific service or asset, they're *administrative* in nature...et al. In other words, the difference between *direct* and *indirect* labor.

    I've got to go downtown now to visit a hospitalized friend ..and fulfill his sniveling demands for a "smoothie".

    I'll get back later on the "defined benefit" and "Pnozi" issue ..it is more of the same meaning smudging. Trust me. =))

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not to be cranky, but what difference does it make? All the semantics in the world won't change the cold hard fact that the social security system was designed for many workers to support one retiree for a decade or less. This scenario is no longer the case. Period.

    It has become a Ponzi scheme, because somewhere down the line there is a generation who will not see a full return on their money. This should have been addressed decades ago, but wasn't.

    What is paid into social security is a tax, plain and simple. The bad part is that the tax is capped; while lower-income workers pay the tax on 100% of their paycheck, higher income workers do not.

    Remove the cap. Tax everyone equally on every dime they make. Poof, social security as a benefit program is solvent. The rich continue to involuntarily support the poor, grandma gets a check every month, socialism is saved, and the politicians still have a job.

    Cost or expense? I don't care. Either dump the program or fix the damn thing. Same with medicare.

    Coffee anyone? :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. OK, my contribution ~

    img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/beckcrying-1.jpg"

    img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/swaggart.jpg"

    img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/boehnercrying-1.jpg"

    ReplyDelete
  24. Aww, now look what you've done aridog! You've corrupted our sweet florrie! What's next, Beck posting his own "crying in a tinfoil hat" photos?

    /muttering and shaking head sadly...

    ReplyDelete
  25. #20 Awesome post!

    img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/concentrate.gif"

    tee hee

    Nah, I still like Glenn, lady red. Hmmm, good 'shop idea you have there...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Not Cranky Lady Red said ~x( : "Not to be cranky, but what difference does it make?"

    Here's the difference: When pols present Social Security as a *cost* they are cloaking the fact it is really "debt service & repayment" for money borrowed and squandered (per chance) on prior *discretionary* expenditures. The debt service is to an insurance program, not an "investment" per se.

    This *cloaking* allows them to continue to make expenditures in excess of federal revenues and point to it, pshaww, as a *minor* percentage of overall expenditure ... which, of course, now has become SSA debt service ... of debt accrued due to spending the money previously. Mobius Loop anyone? (Mobius Loops define roller coasters ...they move fast, go up and down, and yet go no where.)

    I'll be among the first to acknowledge Social Security needs revision...just don't conflate it with annual government *costs* yada yada. (To date it has been self sustaining on debt service ... talk to me when it is really not so).

    The actuarial merits of Social Security (dating to 1935 ... e.g., most of remaining old coots us paid in from day one of our toils and won't hit par until we are 90 or so) is a separate distinct subject worthy of discussion and revision ... especially SSA's arbitrary fantasy on Treasury note Returns on Investment never going below 7% or something.

    In my 20+ odd years with a 401K in Treasuries the ROI never got close to 7%, highest was 5% (on the bubble) or so and much less now ... m-u-c-h less. Next, the indexing formula (separate from any COLA increases ... which are non-existent for 2010 and 2011) of benefits has been tinkered with too much, for *social purposes* and needs a reset. Then there's the SSI payments to folks who've never paid dime one in, er ... never mind, that's not PC. STILL ... the concept is NOT Ponzi ... unless the Treasury defaults on its notes.

    If the rate of FICA "tax" collection (you're right, it was determined to be a "tax" by the US Supremes in 1960, without arbitrary proprietary interests)needs to be increased to meet future needs, do so ... I'll support that (of course I would, I won't be paying it :D ) just as I didn't object to the increases applied to me in my time ... which amounted 220% in just my life time.

    ReplyDelete
  27. lady ("Not Cranky") Red said: "... remove the cap ..."

    Agree on this, for the employee portion, and leave the cap in place for the employer portion (which is paid for by *employees* anyway through purchase of goods and services) and for self employed, cut the rate to 6.2%, above the cap, the same as those corporately. employed.

    I've stated agreement on this idea multiple times elsewhere ... usually ignored.

    Now, since no one addresses how it is even mildly sane to cut FICA revenues by 16+% for a year as a "stimulus" ... I'll answer for you ... it is perfectly sane if your intent is to borrow money from the same people you are giving the tax holiday to in the first place ... in order to pay out that *stimulus.*

    Equivalent to me giving you $100 as a gift and not telling you I stole it from your purse/wallet yesterday. You "feel" good and it creates no wealth, even temporary. Now THAT is some socialism sh*t fer ya'.

    Gotta go watch a ski race now, BBL.

    OMG r i lrng textng?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Better late than never....I've read Lewy's # 5, vis a vis "Wisconsin" several times now and find I agree whole-heartedly with his conclusions.

    Though a union advocate and die-hard Lockean vis a vis the value of labor and its vesting in production ... e.g. the returns on capital ... I can find no philosophical flaw in his conclusions. Especially this piece:

    The citizens are sovereign. The State is the embodiment and the instrument of that sovereignty. Whoever organizes against the citizens is an enemy of the State.

    I have been a member of AFGE (federal employees) until I became "management" ... and the benefits calculations and bargaining rights were minuscule (no such thing as bargaining on wages, for example) compared to what the Wisconsin folks presume is their democratic right. Hogwash.

    The is nothing democratic about mob intimidation and extortion.

    If these "teachers" are not back on the job by tomorrow, I hope they are fired en' mass. There are hundreds of out-of-work teachers across the country who'd be happy to take the jobs I bet.

    ReplyDelete