As of today, April 9, the House Republicans and Senate Democrats respective leadership has reached a deal to cut $38.5B from the federal budget so as to avert a government shutdown. This deal came at the eleventh hour leading up to the shutdown on Friday, April 8. This deal doesn't amount to a formally passed continuing resolution just yet, but assuming no hang-ups in the process, this will become law within a few days. The numbers of cuts discussed include an initial $100B proposed by the GOP. Senate Democrats responded with $30B. Then, the Tea Party caucus insisted for no less than $60B in cuts, and now both sides have come to agree to the $38.5B figure.
Let's consider these numbers. The $30B cuts proposed by the Democrats amount to 4% of the budget and 0.4% of the total us debt, roughly $14T. This budget battle for fiscal year 2011 addresses only a timeline up until October 1 of this year, when the 2012 budget will begin, assuming the Congress actually passes one unlike they failed to do by October 2010.
So I pose the following question: why have the Republicans and the Tea Party caucus spent so much time and energy on FY 2011? The debt ceiling and budget for FY2010 stand as much larger and more critical battles. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have both produced their own respective budget plans for how to address the countries arduous debt and running deficits. Getting either one of these plans in place, or even just portions thereof, enacted in any sustainable form is going to require a knock-down, drag-out fight between the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate and White House.
I understand why representatives like Michelle Bachmann express great frustration over not getting more cuts, but the gains of only removing 8% or less from current federal spending hardly warrant the down-to-the-wire negotiations we've observed. The American public already has a great deal of fatigue over this issue, and with plenty more to come, the House Republicans and Tea Party caucus will have to work overtime to win the media battles to keep the public on their side. The side who wins the PR battles in the media will ultimately get what they want with an election year on the horizon, and the House Republicans not showing the best strategy about which battles to fight has me a little worried. But overall, I think even the staunchest and most firmly grounded Tea Party supports and deficit hawks should look at the passing of this FY 2011 budget as a good thing. Now, time and energy can go to where it will be the most valuable: making the case to the public that America desperately needs a Paul Ryan or Rand Paul approach to the budget.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
A Wisconsin Paradox
Tomorrow, Tuesday, April 5, Wisconsin voters will go to the polls to elect a new judge to the state's supreme court for a ten year term. This election has transformed from one about a judgeship to one as a referendum on Governor Scott Walker and Republican legislators' efforts to reduce the collective bargaining power of union leadership within the State. The Senate stripped budgetary language from the bill in a maneuver to side step the quorum requirement to pass any legislation in reaction to Senate Democrats leaving the state to prevent the legislative business from progressing. The attempts to pass the legislation have sparked protests of angry demonstrators shouting, "Shame!" repeatedly at the legislators in their opposition to the bill's passage. They demonstrated on the stated grounds that this bill attacks their collective bargaining rights. Why does the election of this judge hold such relevance to this matter? Court challenges to the law on the basis of procedure will likely reach the state's supreme court, which will hand down the ultimate decision.
This ongoing saga has sparked strong language from union members about collective bargaining rights, how this bill infringes upon them. But nobody has clearly stated the meaning behind collective bargaining rights. What does it mean? What does it mean to an employee? Collective bargaining means that a group of employees may ban together, choose leadership, and bargain for their compensations with their employer. Collective rights guarantee an individual's ability to participate in this process without fear of retaliation from the employer. To become a member of such a collective, a worker must pay dues to belong to such an organization. Some states within the USA, have Right-to-Work legislation. This means that any employee may enter collective bargaining, but no such organization may compel membership. In states without this legislation, collective bargaining organizations may require that employment comes with a strict coupling of such membership, thus making the dues paid to the collective bargaining organization, i.e. a union, mandatory. Wisconsin does not have Right-to-Work legislation.
So we come to crossroads within the discussion of rights. Do mandatory union dues infringe upon the rights of an individual, or does the individual who choses to negotiate with an employer directly infringe on the rights of the collective? We find this debate far expanding outside of union membership as well. We have an ongoing national debate about whether the government may mandate an individual to purchase a health insurance product. This affects every person, whether they even chose employment associated with a union or not. And beyond health care and collective bargaining, how far should this go? Do we extend it to food products that make overweight people healthy, automobiles that motorists purchase, computing devices business use, clothing types based on cost of production, anti-perspiration products for those who ride crowded subways, birth control for those not financially stable enough to raise children, what people a businessman/woman must hire versus those it may not, etc., etc., etc.? We can make a good case for each how public policy planning could make society as a whole better for all. But we must also ask at what cost? Does it mean an individual cannot make it his or her own way. Does it quash the dreams and ambitions that transform the unimaginable into tangibles we take for granted? Does it stagnate what any one person may dream to achieve, or more simply, does it compromise an individual's ability to merely get by?
At some point, if we keep growing that list, virtually ever person who has some ambition in some facet of life will undoubtedly say such an idea goes too far. If if that person says yes for the thing he or she cares most, then why can't we work backwards from there all the way to the very last thing about which any individual may value? If 1000 employees want to join a union while one single employee does not, do we cast away the free choice of that single employee? Should he or she carry the unwanted obligation of paying for a product, union representation in Wisconsin's circumstances, for which he or she does not want?
Any person who truly values what it means to have a right can only honestly come down on one side of this decision, and that is to affirmatively say yes. If a union's leadership really has the best ideas, they will attract sufficient members to their ranks such that they can effectively bargain with an employer. If a union can't get enough of the employees to voluntarily accept membership in the organization, then it doesn't have the right ideas and questionably has the interests of the worker at heart.
The right of collectively bargaining is paradoxical to the concept of a right. By choosing not to purchase a produce, or membership in this case, infringes upon no other individual's rights. However, the impressment of an individual into such membership absolutely does.
Tomorrow's election will likely have enormous impacts on Wisconsin's collective bargaining future. Incumbent judge David Prosser has not publicly commented on the bill, but reasonable speculation concludes that he would uphold the law passed. A victory by his opponent, current state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, would tip the majority towards Left leaning judges on the court, and she has directly stated her intent to strike down the law. While Wisconsin gives us the venue of this fight, it already has will continue to play out in other parts of the nation, especially as financially strapped taxpayers will demand sacrifices from their public employees with tax revenue as their source of compensation.
Pray Prosser wins.
This ongoing saga has sparked strong language from union members about collective bargaining rights, how this bill infringes upon them. But nobody has clearly stated the meaning behind collective bargaining rights. What does it mean? What does it mean to an employee? Collective bargaining means that a group of employees may ban together, choose leadership, and bargain for their compensations with their employer. Collective rights guarantee an individual's ability to participate in this process without fear of retaliation from the employer. To become a member of such a collective, a worker must pay dues to belong to such an organization. Some states within the USA, have Right-to-Work legislation. This means that any employee may enter collective bargaining, but no such organization may compel membership. In states without this legislation, collective bargaining organizations may require that employment comes with a strict coupling of such membership, thus making the dues paid to the collective bargaining organization, i.e. a union, mandatory. Wisconsin does not have Right-to-Work legislation.
So we come to crossroads within the discussion of rights. Do mandatory union dues infringe upon the rights of an individual, or does the individual who choses to negotiate with an employer directly infringe on the rights of the collective? We find this debate far expanding outside of union membership as well. We have an ongoing national debate about whether the government may mandate an individual to purchase a health insurance product. This affects every person, whether they even chose employment associated with a union or not. And beyond health care and collective bargaining, how far should this go? Do we extend it to food products that make overweight people healthy, automobiles that motorists purchase, computing devices business use, clothing types based on cost of production, anti-perspiration products for those who ride crowded subways, birth control for those not financially stable enough to raise children, what people a businessman/woman must hire versus those it may not, etc., etc., etc.? We can make a good case for each how public policy planning could make society as a whole better for all. But we must also ask at what cost? Does it mean an individual cannot make it his or her own way. Does it quash the dreams and ambitions that transform the unimaginable into tangibles we take for granted? Does it stagnate what any one person may dream to achieve, or more simply, does it compromise an individual's ability to merely get by?
At some point, if we keep growing that list, virtually ever person who has some ambition in some facet of life will undoubtedly say such an idea goes too far. If if that person says yes for the thing he or she cares most, then why can't we work backwards from there all the way to the very last thing about which any individual may value? If 1000 employees want to join a union while one single employee does not, do we cast away the free choice of that single employee? Should he or she carry the unwanted obligation of paying for a product, union representation in Wisconsin's circumstances, for which he or she does not want?
Any person who truly values what it means to have a right can only honestly come down on one side of this decision, and that is to affirmatively say yes. If a union's leadership really has the best ideas, they will attract sufficient members to their ranks such that they can effectively bargain with an employer. If a union can't get enough of the employees to voluntarily accept membership in the organization, then it doesn't have the right ideas and questionably has the interests of the worker at heart.
The right of collectively bargaining is paradoxical to the concept of a right. By choosing not to purchase a produce, or membership in this case, infringes upon no other individual's rights. However, the impressment of an individual into such membership absolutely does.
Tomorrow's election will likely have enormous impacts on Wisconsin's collective bargaining future. Incumbent judge David Prosser has not publicly commented on the bill, but reasonable speculation concludes that he would uphold the law passed. A victory by his opponent, current state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, would tip the majority towards Left leaning judges on the court, and she has directly stated her intent to strike down the law. While Wisconsin gives us the venue of this fight, it already has will continue to play out in other parts of the nation, especially as financially strapped taxpayers will demand sacrifices from their public employees with tax revenue as their source of compensation.
Pray Prosser wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)