Doom and gloom

Kalamazoo article.... (0.00 / 0)

It complains about losing funding for their nursing program under the new budget proposal, but then makes the point that Republicans want the cuts to be deeper.

I don't hope the Guv has an alternative to cutting funding for the program.  If we can get universal healthcare here the program wouldn't even be needed.

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 17:53:18 PM CST

Re: State Police Budget Cuts (4.00 / 2)

The state police cuts are already starting.  Uniformed officers are being transferred away from direct law enforcement and over to administrative tasks, while some (limited-term) civilians who were providing those services will be laid off when their terms expire.  Some of the limited-term employees have been working those administrative positions for 3-4 years; their only reward is the door. 

And transferring road patrol to deputies might sound good, but the federal grant money to local sheriff departments will be drying up soon and the counties will have even less resources to patrol those roads.  For example, Ingham County Commissioner Mark Grebner (D-East Lansing) told me when the federal law enforcement grant ends in 2008 he plans to push to eliminate rural road patrol in Ingham County.  And some localities (such as Benton Harbor) would be devastated by the lack of Michigan State Police presence.  Not to mention that MSP also provides regional coordination for many types of law enforcement (such as sex offender and narcotics task forces); without the state providing a lead in some of these efforts they will not be as effective.

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 21:04:35 PM CST

I don't think that's what I said (0.00 / 0)

The comment attributed to me sounds like it was the result of a violent collision between two different conversations.  I've been talking about shifting more of the cost of rural road patrol onto the rural townships that presently depend on the County's general fund for their law enforcement.  But it wouldn't result in the elimination of road patrol, it wouldn't happen as soon as 2008, and it doesn't result from the end of any Federal grants. 

I think Butch and I talked about Ingham's Sheriff's services, and he also talked to somebody about the end of the COPS program (from which Ingham never received any money, as far as I know) and they become joined into a single event.

But if I've ever said anything like the post, I was out of my head and I take it all back.

---

by: Grebner @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 13:58:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I apologize if I misremembered (0.00 / 0)

The conversation was nearly a year ago and I might very well have gotten the details mixed up.  I know you weren't talking about the COPS program per se, but funding for rural road patrol was one of the things we discussed.

If you don't mind discussing it, what is the status of funding for rural road patrol in Ingham County?  I know the millage proposal never got off the ground last year as the rural commissioners didn't want non-rural residents voting to raise the taxes of their rural constituents.

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 22:30:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Somehow my reply ended up way down at the bottom (0.00 / 0)

If anybody cares about the politics of Ingham County road patrol, it's about twenty messages down.
  ||
  ||
  \||/
  \/

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 00:47:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it liberal to establish and defend a privileged class? (3.00 / 3)

Eric B. argues that people are already being hurt by the fact that state government is growing very slowly, and cites the loss or potential loss of school sports or busing for some students as evidence. But lets read a little further in the "Doom for Whom?" column he complains about - it suggests a reason for schools cutting back, and it has nothing to do with "conservatives in denial": "No business will leave the state - or choose not to locate here - because school employees are shifted to a preferred provider network health plan with modest co-pays, rather than less efficient plans that currently consume an unnecessary $400 million annually."

I have tremendous respect for teachers who every day face rooms full of children who would rather be somewhere else, but something is out of balance in this system. The median teacher pay in Michigan is $52,497, compared to $40,040 for workers in general. The average Michigan state employee receives a salary and benefits package worth nearly $75,000, and if anything school employees cost more than that. Yet the comparable figure for Michigan private-sector employees is approximately $58,000.

Some will argue that the comparison is not fair because teachers are highly trained professionals. It's true that they have received lots of training to comply with regulations the education establishment has steadily piled into statute. Whether those standards have any relationship to the quality of teaching is highly debatable, but there's no question they have contributed to a shortage of "qualified" teachers in many districts. Perhaps that's their real purpose.

Here's an apples-to-apples comparison of compensation for another kind of government worker, a receptionist ("communications assistant") working in a state department in Lansing. With benefits, compensation ranges from $42,200 and $59,700. In contrast, a receptionist working for the Lansing Chamber of Commerce gets salary and fringe benefits worth about $30,200 to $34,400.

Now we can argue forever about what is "fair," and there's no one who doesn't want every worker in this state (and everywhere else for that matter) to earn more. We can also argue about whether government should do more or less. But here's the point:

When did it become "liberal" to establish one privileged class of workers who are protected from the economic realities that impact the rest of society? When you peel away all the rhetoric, that's what the debate about the level of government spending in Michigan really boils down to.

No reasonable person can look at the benefits packages of Michigan school employees and not agree that they're out of whack. Even Gov. Granholm's tax increase panel said redressing this imbalance needs to be part of the solution. It's quite clear that the problem isn't just the benefits, either, notwithstanding claims from school employees that they have traded lower wages in return for those gold-plated benefits. The evidence is that they have not.

Eric B. says, "The defense that government cuts will hurt people has basis for reality." The article he cites concludes, "When politicians and their lieutenants prophesy doom if spending is cut, it pays to question what they define as 'doom,' and for whom." In the case of school spending, "doom" is defined by the beneficiaries of the status quo as seeing the cost of their health benefits reduced from an average of $11,362 statewide to $9,212 - the cost of the very generous benefits state employees receive. If the choice is between providing more reasonable levels of benefits or cutting school sports and busing programs, which would a real liberal choose?

Jack McHugh

---

by: JPM @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:11:40 AM CST

Welcome to Michigan Liberal, Jack McHugh (4.00 / 4)

A real liberal would first look at how things work, which makes your question about benefits or busing a false choice.

School boards negotiate health benefits into teacher contracts.  Some have started to go with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to reduce benefit costs (one of our local districts that did that turned around a few months later and laid off a teacher), but once you have a contract in hand, the question of benefits or busing becomes moot until the contract expires.

Unless, of course, you plan to put the state in charge of teacher pay and benefits packages ... which is something you should probably tell people, so they can choose to either pay a little extra for a hair cut or to give up more local control over schools.

Ball's back in your court.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:08:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Same old same old (4.00 / 2)

Jack's diatribe is nothing more than a public employee-oriented riff on Betsy DeVos's infamous remark that "Michigan employees make too much money."

Helloooo, Jack?  When middle-class employees make a lot of money, they spend it on goods and services and the economy grows.  If my $50,000 a year income makes me part of a "privileged class," that's news to me.  I live in a modest three-bedroom ranch in a rural area, drive a four-year-old car, have some debt, a little savings, and need to get my butt in gear and start saving for retirement.  There are no Luis Vuitton handbags and Gucci loafers in my closet, and for vacations I go to the UP, not the Riviera.

People like Jack seem to be offended by the idea that government might actually provide its employees a middle-class income, and that's what $50,000 a year is.  Back in 1976 it might have been an extravagant salary; now, if you make less, you're going to be skimping on some pretty important basic needs, like health care and saving for retirement (now that the only true pension plans for state employees are those that are grandfathered in).  The reason Jack finds $50,000 a year so offensive is because then he'd have to admit that the people in this country who are making minimum wage are in a crisis situation, instead of getting just what they deserve like he and his ilk think they do.

But never mind.  Cut, cut, cut, and in the end we'll all shine each others' shoes for a living and live in cardboard boxes.

For the umpteenth time:  no thanks, I'll gladly pay my 2 percent service tax.

---

by: eartha651 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 12:19:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How much does Jack make? (0.00 / 0)

Right on eartha. I wonder what economic class Jack belongs to?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:32:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Other workers have had to make concessions. What makes these ones exempt? (2.50 / 2)

Thanks Eric B. for the welcome, and for not biting off the head of an "intruder." (It appears the sharks are circling, though.)

Thousands of private sector workers have been forced to give back painful concessions on pay and benefits because their employers were failing to remain competitive. Those workers were not insulated from the economic realities our society must deal with.

If  much smaller concessions by school and other government employees cannot even be contemplated, then doesn't this confirm my thesis that these workers have been made into a privileged class, to be protected at all costs from the economic realities that affect everyone else in our society?

As to how we get from here to there, I personally have no dogmatic philosophical views on which level of government should be responsible for school employee benefits. It may be that local school boards are overmatched by the power of the union, however, as evidenced by the extent to which school employee compensation and benefits exceed even that of state workers.

Setting that detail aside, I believe that people of good will can find reasonable solutions when there is a consensus on all sides that a problem exists. The exception to that consensus is the privileged class itself, which will do almost anything to protect its benefits.

How far will these beneficiaries of the status quo go? In a recent union newsletter opposing the competitive contracting of school custodial, transportation and food services, speaking in the cause of pure self interest, one member of that privileged class paraphrased the near-sacred text of Pastor Martin Niemoller's confession: "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew . . ." This person inserted "bus drivers, janitors," etc. into the well known refrain. Need I point out that this is a slander on the real victims of Nazi atrocities?

---

by: JPM @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 14:27:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for confessing (4.00 / 1)

that you're just an exceptionally well-spoken troll.

---

by: eartha651 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 15:22:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not only that.... (0.00 / 0)

But he thinks janitors are a part of the "priviledged class."

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 00:29:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exemption from reality (4.00 / 1)

Oh, you're no intruder here, and the sharks are mostly harmless.  Mostly.

Here is what we agree on ... there is no sane reason why teacher compensation should be automatically off the table.

Here is where our disagreement starts ... I don't see teachers as being exempt from the pressures of reality.  Insulated somewhat, perhaps, but not exempt.

Some districts are starting to re-examine health benefits, and some are building into new contracts either flat pay or pay raises lower than the cost of living.  I think budget pressures will force this to continue.

As we both know, right now the power of negotiating contracts rests with the individual school districts and the true savings couldn't be realized until all of those districts cycled through their next round of talks.  We also know that in an imperfect world, there is no way we'd ever realize perfect savings ($400 million, I think you mentioned).

Why not reopen contracts rather than cutting services?  Well, let's take a look at Mount Pleasant, where I pointed to transportation cuts.  At the time the district made the cuts, it was still recovering from its last teacher contract negotiations.  Two straight contract negotiations created a great deal of animosity between the board and administration, and it threatened to morph into a problem for the community at large.  When both sides finally agreed (there was speculation that the teachers were slow to agree because they knew that they'd have to concede on things like co-pays and insurance premiums, which they ultimately did), both sides were eager to sign a three-year contract, let wounds heal, and focus on education.

Here is another problem.  Right now, districts around the state are waiting to see if they're going to have to absorb a $200 per pupil hit.  If they do, the cuts will have to be made quickly.  If not, schools will be spared.  Undoubtedly, smart administrators across the state are drawing up contingency plans (during another round of cuts last year, the same district that negotiated outside the traditional health care model was forced to lay off a teacher), but no administrator (or union) is going to renegotiate a contract based on a possibility.  The flexibility inherent to the private sector doesn't exist where your budgets are fixed to rigid revenue sources and strict rules about deficit spending.

I argue that while teacher compensation will inevitably have to come closer into line with the private sector, it isn't an efficient source for savings at the state level.  Savings will neither be fast nor to the amount of $400 million.  And, it just means that local districts could absorb cuts to the per pupil foundation grant from the state.

The other alternative is to place the responsibility for teacher compensation in the hands of the state.  It's not an entirely radical idea, since the state controls the pursestrings and also curriculum.  But, that opens its own can of worms, like why Lansing shouldn't also control the hiring process ... and it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to simply doing away with the local school board.  If this is the answer, I'd just as soon pay Dave the Barber an extra 50 cents for a haircut.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 19:48:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Proof that conservative policy doesn't work: (0.00 / 0)

George W. Bush.  Enough said.

(Yeah, I know Eric's response was much better, but still, the proof is in the pudding).

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 00:20:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't consider Mr. Bush a conservative (0.00 / 0)

Prescription drugs, no child left behind, McCain/Feingold, spending in general.....I'm surprised the democrats didn't embrace him as one of their own. :)


"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

---

by: Republican Michigander @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 21:59:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bush is yours, suck it up (0.00 / 0)

"I'm surprised the democrats didn't embrace him as one of their own.  :)"

After all the harm that Bush has done, all his mean-spirited attacks on Democrats, saying that we support the enemy, even slandering us in the State of the Union ...  I don't know how in the world you thought that line would be cute.

---

by: Christine @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:11:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm guessing you voted for him... (0.00 / 0)

And now that he's Mr. 33% (depending on the polls), every conservative wants to say he's not with you.

You guys voted for him, he's yours.  Too bad if you don't want him hung around your neck.

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 13:24:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He's Republican, not conservative (0.00 / 0)

I never said Bush was conservative. Lesser of two evils.

I was given the choice between a moderate (1980's era Southern Democrat) and an extreme leftist, neither of which with a good record on freedoms. Your caucus voters gave me the absolute worst possible person running.

On the main issues I disagreed with Bush on, John Kerry was just as bad or worse. Patriot Act (I oppose it), trade issues (NAFTA/GATT), Spending.  Add the fact that I have no use for Mr Kerry as a person. Add the fact that he insults my intelligence about "hunting" when it comes to firearms issues while voting to ban all centerfire ammo, and it made my choice much easier.

Given my choices, I have no regrets.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

---

by: Republican Michigander @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 13:50:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what you're saying.... (0.00 / 0)

Is that people need to be paid LESS wages, not more?  Okay, gotcha so far.

Let's start with the corporate CEOs.  After all, our "CEO", Jennifer Granholm, is paid $175,000 a year.  But many CEOs and corporate owners make much more than that.  According to Forbes, in 2005 Richard Wagoner Jr. made well over $2 million just on salary alone!  Let's take away their salaries and use the leftover money to invest in our workers, so they can have good paying jobs with healthcare.

If we're going to fuck over those who work for a living, lets start with those making the most money first.  Unless, of course, you want to be a prick.

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 00:26:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ahhh...here we go. (0.00 / 0)

Conservatives want to kill MESSA, what a surprise.

The thing that makes MESSA superior to the alternative offered by the "never met a tax cut we didn't like" Center is that the rates of copay are locked for the term of the contract with MESSA.

By shifting this away from negotiation of the union/healthcare provider to the boss/healthcare provider you allow the boss to adjust the copays any damn time they want.

In other words...have your coverage through MESSA, copay costs are negotiated between the union employees and MESSA...

Let the employers and the healthcare provider negotiate and you'll get health care cost dumping onto the employees.

Bosses will negotiate higher copays for their employees...

Funny how the Center has never examined how the insurance companies structure their risk and benefit costs.

You know, instead of grouping people into tiny business by business units to maximize profits at the consumers' expense, why not require that any insurer in Michigan must offer insurance pools for the entire state populace?

Maybe because it takes profit away from the people who throw money at idiotic think tanks?

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 13:08:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Doom & Gloom (4.00 / 3)

Excuse me but do I really need to remind folks that the first two years of the Granholm Administration resulted in state employees working 40 hours but being paid for 36 and on top of that, in the first year, they got to take a week off without pay too. 
I myself didn't mind the cut in pay too much because the time did get banked and eventually I will re-coup it...so I viewed it as a forced savings.  The payless week was a bit harder but still one could spread it out over time and thus only take small nicks to one's budget. 
In any case, state employees have taken their hits (not always gracefully by some) but they did and I expect it will come around again to "hit" us again.  My question is, when will the Legislaors (especially the Repugs who are reaaly the ones who feel entitled to their lifestyle) give a little back to help with the crisis? 
I'm sure someone like Robert J. Samulson (Newsweek) would pooh pooh the insignificance of any giveback when looking at the big picture.  But I'll tell you what, it would show some leadership and send a signal that we are all in this together. 
Governor Granholm, I'm almost certain, gave back a % of her salary the first couple of years in office as Gov.  I don't recall ANY legislators following suit.  So my question is...if cutting is necessary then why can't legislators set an example and take a hit...like maybe 10%...or even 2%...that seems to be a number the Rethugs want to bicker over these days. 
But let me go on record as saying I am willing to pay 2% more for services if it means that vital services can be preserved if not expanded and to prevent layoffs of any state workers.  After all, we pay a surhcarge to all kinds of businesses for the "privilage" of being able to say buy tickets (thanks to Ticket Master) by phone or computer or even in person sometimes.  We pay a "fee" to our banks and credit unions to be able to pull money out of a machine anywhere anytime (if it's not theirs).  You pay late penalties for credit cards.  You even get to pay extra for the privilage of paying by phone on some credit cards...a nifty little idea to zap folks who remeber to late to get it in by mail to avoid the late fees...but wait it's almost like paying that late fee cause they charge you to do it by phone. 
I recently paid a $5. fee to Comcast listed on my bill as a one time fee and I have NO IDEA what that was about. In other words, the private sector already hits us up with plenty of "taxes" on the services they provide us so why then can't government collect it's own tax or to use businesses word...fee?  Itty bitty 2%!  Big deal...it will amount to no more than the cost of a cup of coffee...and I'm not talking Starbucks or Beaners but a cup of QD coffee a day.  I rest my case.

---

by: GLDNRULE @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 16:01:30 PM CST

sweet (0.00 / 0)

There's so much to address on this thread of comments.
I'll start with one point, sleep on it, read it more, and come back..

Regarding Eric B.'s statement about schools of choice and what would happen if Mt. Pleasant schools busing was affected by budget cuts:

MY POINTS:

1. Is it really proper for parents to complain because a bus route had to change and presented a minor inconvenience? Awww. What a hardship (that is said with exteme sarcasm, thank you.)

2. If Mt. Pleasant ELIMINATED busing, where would these kids go? It's not like there is a monumental alternative within driving distance. GET THIS NEWS-FLASH: FREE TRANSPORTATION (BUSING) DOES NOT PRESENT MT. PLEASANT SCHOOLS WITH ANY SIGNIFICANT COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. Parents would either: a) drive their kids to school, or b) move to a different city. Presented with their options, I think they might be able to justify a little quality time with their kids for the 7 minute car ride to school. If transportation is anywhere near the top of their list of desirable benefits/reasons for sending their kids to a particular school, then they are sadly unaware of the intent and purpose of schools. Oh, that reminds me of...

...SPORTS. Please tell me who I have to thank for making kids' sports such a tremendous priority in our society?  Parents care more about their kid's soccer game than their kid's algebra class. Since parents seem to think these sports are so very very important, I think they'll be willing to shell out a couple bucks so their kids can get his ass kicked on the soccer field.

I have kids. I ENJOY driving them to school every day. It'd be a great thing for our country if parent spent these extra 10-20 minutes a day with their kids.

My kids play sports. I've seen the other parents' disturbingly overzealous pursuit of competitive sports. They invest extraorinary amounts of time into these sports. I guarantee you that they'll pay $100 in the hopes that their little football player will break some other kid's neck.

Now that I've typed 300% more words than I had hoped... I'll shut up.

---

by: lois90218 @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 23:09:45 PM CST

It's very nice to disregard legitimate beefs, but... (4.00 / 1)

Are you a teacher?  Just asking.

Regarding Eric B.'s statement about schools of choice and what would happen if Mt. Pleasant schools busing was affected by budget cuts:

Mt. Pleasant schools busing was already affected by budget cuts.  That's the whole point.  Bus stops were moved from inside subdivisions (speed limit-25 mph) to central collection points along heavily-traveled roads (speed limit-45 mph). 

Parents (the bloody whiners) said they were concerned for the safety of their kids, which I guess to you is no big deal.  The same went for the other local, entirely rural school district where bus stop changes were made -- parents were told their kids would have to wait out on dark roads and take a longer ride to school because the district had to rearrange transportation to balance the budget.

But the whole point is that sports and busing are marketing gimmicks for schools to retain students.  Where would a kid go if a district eliminated busing?  Well, if the parent commutes to work, chances are that they'd go to school where the parent works.  Hell, I know people who've done this without cuts to busing.  If you're forced to take your kid to school, you might be more tempted to look around at local charter schools or private schools, or at districts that aren't too far out of the way.

My kids play sports. I've seen the other parents' disturbingly overzealous pursuit of competitive sports. They invest extraorinary amounts of time into these sports. I guarantee you that they'll pay $100 in the hopes that their little football player will break some other kid's neck.

Or, they'll just send them to a neighboring district where sports are free, if it's convenient enough, which is why no one really likes pay-to-play programs ... it's incentive for parents to shop around.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:08:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Anti-Trust Regulation is the concept to grab ahold of here (0.00 / 0)

Eric makes a compelling argument that immediate savings would be impossible until contracts expire.  That's if we take the view that these are normal contracts.  Anti-trust regulation however is a concept accepted by liberals and conservatives (a libertarian argument for **modest** regulation of anti-trust activity).  I'm committed in my belief that the teachers unions have, in the area of health benefits at least, have engaged in types of anti-competitive behavior that, if done by a corporation, would be decried by the left very loudly.

Someone talked about proof in the pudding.  The proof is in the pudding here.  Look at the dollar amounts Jack lays out.  The "excess" "profits" of MESSA - the union-fed monopoly - are precisely measurable.  Many contracts are negotiated where the Board isn't allowed to access insurance pool information - so it can't shop out for competitive rates even if it wanted to or had the collective strength.

And talk about personal pain.  I just personally witnessed (and recorded) a superintendent selection process where a candidate was cut from the finalist position SOLELY because she had negotiated a hard contract in her current district's teachers and the union has made it known STATEWIDE that hiring her would result in recriminations.  The Board didn't want to cut her for that reason, but it also knew it would pay a price EVEN BY BRINGING THE CANDIDATE TO A SECOND INTERVIEW.

That's anti-trust-like behavior.  Statewide regulation of such contracts is reasonable, even without statewide takeover.  Or the State could simply exercise its own "collective bargaining" strength and negotiate health care only for all school employees (indeed, let's reform all state employee health care at once).  Why not?  That doesn't take away local control - it merely increases the size of the health care insurance pool negotiated and should realize a savings aside from the anti-competitive savings increased bargaining power brings.

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 03:18:33 AM CST

Monopoly (0.00 / 0)

I'm committed in my belief that the teachers unions have, in the area of health benefits at least, have engaged in types of anti-competitive behavior that, if done by a corporation, would be decried by the left very loudly.

How do you feel that the war in Iraq is going?

That's what happens when people commit to their beliefs, rather than allow their beliefs to be shaped by evidence.

If you have evidence that a candidate was not included among the finalists (and you say you recorded it), please ... by all means, produce it.  You can e-mail a file to me at ebaerren@gmail.com.  I'm not being flip, if a teacher's union has placed the financial well being ahead of the kids they're supposed to educated, I want to know about it.

Otherwise, I can point you to half a dozen local school districts that have negotiated reasonable concessions like co-pays and premiums with their local teachers union, and at least one that has gone (with willful acquiescence of the local teachers union) outside MESSA for Blue Cross.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 07:32:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If (0.00 / 0)

Eric,

I will e-mail it to you and something else on two conditions.

You treat any communications between us as confidential and not reproduce it without my prior permission.  I won't elaborate here why I dont' want to simply upload it to the world at this point in time.

By the way, you're introduction of Iraq into this conversation is irrelevant, and I won't sidetrack by going down that road.  You might be surprised at my views there.  Regardless, I only commit to beliefs that I have evidence and reasoning for, and whether I'm committed in this particular belief or not is not relevant to the persuasiveness or evidence of the arguments I make to support it.

And yes, there are increasing numbers of districts going outside MESSA. And more will over time. And there is the problem of time and honoring contracts - the problem is the contracts border on gouging, so it is a legitimate area for us to look at.

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 21:25:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

gouging?!! (0.00 / 0)

I have an idea.

How's about we tax 100% of the money funneled to asinine think tanks and use that money to repair our state's infrastructure.

Only a conservative would accuse employees of gouging the tax payers while railing against taxes to support government programs of benefit to the public.

As for MESSA, I invite you to read my comment up thread on what this is really about...shifting the negotiation for employee health care away from the employees and into the hands of the employer...who have historically had the best interests of their workers in mind at all times...[/sarcasm]

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:53:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Only "asinine" ones? (0.00 / 0)

I'd consider a proposal to tax think-tanks (indeed, ALL NON-PROFITS, in fact, let's eliminate all non-profits, period, since many of them compete with private-sector enterprises at a tax advantage - - or, if that's too harsh, open up non-profits to FOIA) as long as it included Jon Stryker's right along with Mackinac.

Who gets to define what think-tanks are asinine?

And I have never accused "employees" of gouging taxpayers.  I accused MESSA in particular, a corporation!  I wonder if that makes me a "liberal," since I'm attacking corporations.  And I invite you to read my comment about how the employee could retain rights and negotiating power for terms even if MESSA wasn't doing it or the government itself bargained collectively for all school districts. Indeed, I believe its a win-win for teachers - it would be possible to get marginally better health care benefits if we cut out the middleman, or negotiated better rates at least, and better for the students.

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:30:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So you support universal health care? (0.00 / 0)

That would solve all our problems now wouldn't it...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:29:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If you have evidence I insist on the right to reproduce it (0.00 / 0)

I'm not going to sit on evidence that a public schools union placed self-benefit before education, and I'm not going to take a public stance on something for which I can't offer evidence.  In fact, this is something that should be brought to the public's attention, because it would put the union into the position of either enraging and losing the support of parents like me or reassessing the way they operate (I'd argue that unions in districts that are departing the MESSA system have themselves seen the writing on the wall and are trying to balance between self interest -- which a union is supposed to represent -- and the good of the community at large ... these folks deserve your recognition).

As for Iraq, it isn't irrelevant.  There are literally thousands of Americans who insist that the war is going swimmingly, and that we're improving the situation in the Middle East by merely being there, in stark contrast to the evidence.  These people are first and foremost "committed to their beliefs" rather than allowing evidence to shape their views.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:08:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Odd (0.00 / 0)

Iraq - the war isn'g going "swimmingly", but the topic is too complex to discuss here and now.  The evidence of four years hindsight certainly leads to many questions - nonetheless, we are there and need to carefully evaluate the best exit strategy consistent with our values and the solution isn't obvious.  Your point about how the folks who started the war were "committed to their beliefs" and conflation of that to every other situation where someone is so "committed" is an argument of logical extension that simply doesn't extend.  One can be committed to a belief based on solid evidence, and, as you argue with the President, committed based on a lack of solid evidence (or bad evidence).  One can be committed and open to new evidence, and one can be committed and not open.

As to the audio, I'm sending you an email with my phone number. Alot of things should be brought to public attention - do you have the power to do so in a serious way?

"You can't handle the truth."

---

by: chetly @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:21:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Stuff... (0.00 / 0)

One can be committed and open to new evidence, and one can be committed and not open.

I was only really asking the question of whether you were wed to your beliefs in the same way that most of the war's supporters are today wed to theirs -- in defiance of reality.

do you have the power to do so in a serious way?

Every time it seems like I get into an intertubes pissing match the first thing the other guys does is Google my name and point out that I write a weekly opinion column for my local newspaper.  It's a small one (13,000 circ.) ... is that serious enough for you?

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:21:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I said it. (0.00 / 0)

Someone talked about proof in the pudding.

And that proof is George W. Bush.  It's proof that you conservatives don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

But hey, keep blaming teachers.  We like winning elections.

Putting conservatives in charge of our government makes about as much sense as GM hiring a CEO who hates cars.

---

by: djtyg @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:49:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Conncessions are already happening (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure about other districts, but I know of at least one where health care concessions have been made in at least the last 2 or 3 contracts.  So far it has just been small chipping away of what the school will pay with each contract (last contract doubled the prescription co-pay in some cases and greatly increased them in other cases), but these small chips are starting to add up.  I believe the other districts around this one has also had to make concessions as well although I am not sure what they were.

---

by: InterrupT @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:06:48 AM CST

Lansing, Mount Pleasant, Shepherd, Alma, St. Louis (0.00 / 0)

Five that I know off the top of my head where teachers are paying more of their own health insurance tab (Lansing, per today's Lansing State Journal).  I wouldn't doubt if this is a general trend.  I also know of at least one school district that has departed from MESSA for Blue Cross, and the superintendent of another who said (at the time) he plans to press for this during the next round of talks.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:16:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't doubt that this is happening statewide. (0.00 / 0)

This makes their argument seem all the more silly to me because they fail to realize that concessions are all ready being made.  Their goal isn't about making education better, it is about vilifying unions.

---

by: InterrupT @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:42:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This would seem to be a free market at work... (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:47:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ingham County rural road patrol (0.00 / 0)

This is WAY off-topic, of course, but since you ask. . . .

The reason last year's idea for a millage didn't go anywhere wasn't the opposition of rural Commissioners - they simply don't have enough votes to make any difference.  The problem was the urban and suburban members didn't like the idea of taxing the whole county in order to deliver services to 11%, while having to refund the other 89% back to local governments.  The details of deciding exactly what formula to use, and what restrictions to apply, made the majority of the Board leery.

For what it's worth, the Ingham Board has 16 members, of whom 12 represent ONLY urban and suburban areas, which don't benefit from the Sheriff's road patrol.  The remaining four members each represent mixes of areas which maintain their own police departments and areas which rely on the Sheriff.  Last year, this division also perfectly matched the partisan division of the Board - all four of the rural members were Republicans, while all twelve urban/suburban members were Dems.  In November, we picked up one additional rural seat, so the Republicans are even further from mattering than they were before.

Implicit in my previous post, the Board is always reluctant to take controversial steps, since almost all of our members are quietly thinking about running for higher office.  Eventually, we'll face a crisis, triggered by the exhaustion of funds to continue the State's payment of revenue sharing to counties.  When that happens, we'll suddenly be $5 million short, and either the rural townships will have to contribute toward road patrol, or the County will have to make big cuts in the only other substantial discretionary programs we have, mainly the Health Department and our park system.  Faced with that, I expect they'll find the courage to begin the reforms we should have made twenty years ago, in making rural folks pay (at least partly) for their police services.

If we're lucky, maybe the Board will take action before we're actually neck-deep in a financial crisis.  But - based on over thirty years experience - my bet is the only "action" we'll see will be the formation of a task force, and maybe the hiring of a consultant.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 00:42:42 AM CST

Thanks for the reply! (0.00 / 0)

Although I live in a city, I have lots of friends and relatives in rural Ingham County so I take the issue seriously.  It is always good to see elected officials taking the time to respond the public.  Thanks again!

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:31:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]