Wisconsin governor signs bill restricting public workers' rights
Raises would be tied to the rate of inflation, unless state voters approve an exception. The legislation also requires unions to hold a new certification vote every year, and unions would no longer be allowed to collect dues from workers' paychecks.
Some weeks ago when this affair began Mr. Walker, the governor, repeatedly said that this was about the Wisconsin budget deficit, a deficit that he helped create. Unable to pass a budget bill because the minority Democrats in the state senate left the state and the senate couldn't muster the quorum needed to pass a spending bill, Mr. Walker and his Republican partisans removed the spending measures and passed a union busting bill.
First, this was never really about spending. Rather it was a mean spirited move to break the state employees union. While Common Sense is not a great fan of unions, this bill with its requirement for yearly recertification is simply wrong.
Second, it is not plainly clear that Mr. Walker is more concerned about idealogical purity than the Wisconsin budget. Throughout the process the union indicated a willingness to compromise on money. As things now stand Wisconsin's budget issues have not been addressed and the state employee's union is justifiably outraged. It appears that many of the state's voters are likewise disgusted with the blatant hypocrisy displayed by Mr. Walker and his radical Republican cohorts as evidenced by several recall petitions.
In Common Sense's view this is not the politics of democratic common good. Rather it is a sad example of radical ideological purity perverting government. When a majority disregards the legitimate concerns of a minority democracy is simply mob rule. When a majority is unwilling to negotiate with those that disagree with them based on ideological purity then democracy has been replaced by religious rule. This is a sad case study in what is wrong with American politics and a wakeup call for serious reform and the need for a centrist political party.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Americans drove 2.9 trillion miles in 2010!
In the DOT's latest "Traffic Volume Trends" report, it's estimated that American drivers collectively logged over 2.9 trillion miles in their vehicles last year. That's an 0.7 percent increase—20.5 billions more miles—than the previous year and marks the most vehicle miles traveled since 2007.
Think about that for a moment. The cost as born by users, that's you and me, is about $0.65/mile. That makes the user born use cost about $1.9 trillion!
But that's just the user born direct cost. The roads we drove on have to be built and maintained. The actual cost of building a mile of road varies greatly but for interstates is somewhere between $1 million per mile and $20 million per mile! There are about 2,734,102 miles of paved road in the US. Of course local roads do not cost as much as interstates but some interstates cost much more than others. The actual average cost of a mile of road must be a few hundred thousand dollars per mile. That makes the capital cost of the roads something around $500 billion or so.
Roads have to be maintained and periodically replaced. The average lifetime of a road varies considerably but is something on the order of 15 to 20 years. That makes the yearly cost of the road system around $25 billion or so.
Common Sense notes that the real cost of automobile transportation is much much more than is commonly understood. Surely there must be a better way.
Think about that for a moment. The cost as born by users, that's you and me, is about $0.65/mile. That makes the user born use cost about $1.9 trillion!
But that's just the user born direct cost. The roads we drove on have to be built and maintained. The actual cost of building a mile of road varies greatly but for interstates is somewhere between $1 million per mile and $20 million per mile! There are about 2,734,102 miles of paved road in the US. Of course local roads do not cost as much as interstates but some interstates cost much more than others. The actual average cost of a mile of road must be a few hundred thousand dollars per mile. That makes the capital cost of the roads something around $500 billion or so.
Roads have to be maintained and periodically replaced. The average lifetime of a road varies considerably but is something on the order of 15 to 20 years. That makes the yearly cost of the road system around $25 billion or so.
Common Sense notes that the real cost of automobile transportation is much much more than is commonly understood. Surely there must be a better way.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Juxtaposed: Education, reality, and Pennsylvania
Corbett nominee says new high school tests will be delayed
By Adrienne Lu
Inquirer Staff Writer
HARRISBURG - Gov. Corbett's nominee to lead the state's Education Department said at his confirmation hearing Monday that implementation of the new Keystone high school graduation exams would be delayed because field tests had indicated students were not well enough prepared for them.
The first exams were to be given at many schools this spring in Algebra 1, biology, and literature. Tests in seven other subjects were to be phased in by the 2016-17 school year.
"It's a good time to take a step back and make sure that, when we go forward to implement a higher-stakes test, that our students are able to pass the test that . . . we're forcing them to pass," Ronald Tomalis said. "The preliminary indications are that it's going to be very challenging in many areas."
Recently American education has been much in the news. The 2011 Federal budget proposes cuts that would impact education spending nationwide; President Obama has focused on improving education visiting several schools and calling for increased education spending; and the Governor of Wisconsin has proposed a law that would effectively strip government employee unions, particularly teachers, of much of their collective bargaining rights. Into this mix add the state of Pennsylvania where the governors Education Department nominee called for delaying objective performance tests for high school students noting that it was important that students should be able to pass the tests.
Common Sense has a couple of observations. Clearly Mr Tomalis, the Education Department nominee, believes that a significant number of Pennsylvania high school students could not pass the proposed tests. In other words, the education establishment in Pennsylvania at least is unable to actually educate enough students and if students are tested the results will be poor. Proof positive in Common Sense's view that education is broken.
Noteworthy as well is Mr Tomalis solution - don't test, at least until passing can be guaranteed! That amounts to arguing that the solution to incompetent and ineffectual education is to sweep it under the rug at least for a while. But what about the students that are being sent through the education system and not educated? What about the taxpayers that are spending money for education and not getting it? Isn't it time the education establishment started living in the real world where results matter? Common Sense thinks so.
Beyond that though there is an underlying assumption that high school students should be able to pass. That's something of a two sided notion. If education works then indeed the majority of students should be able to pass. But, and it's an important but, a high school diploma should not simply be an attendance certificate. Rather it should reflect a level of competency. As such not everyone would have the same competency and indeed some would not be sufficiently competent. Perhaps it's time to take an accomplishment view of high school.
Just a Common Sense POV.
By Adrienne Lu
Inquirer Staff Writer
HARRISBURG - Gov. Corbett's nominee to lead the state's Education Department said at his confirmation hearing Monday that implementation of the new Keystone high school graduation exams would be delayed because field tests had indicated students were not well enough prepared for them.
The first exams were to be given at many schools this spring in Algebra 1, biology, and literature. Tests in seven other subjects were to be phased in by the 2016-17 school year.
"It's a good time to take a step back and make sure that, when we go forward to implement a higher-stakes test, that our students are able to pass the test that . . . we're forcing them to pass," Ronald Tomalis said. "The preliminary indications are that it's going to be very challenging in many areas."
Recently American education has been much in the news. The 2011 Federal budget proposes cuts that would impact education spending nationwide; President Obama has focused on improving education visiting several schools and calling for increased education spending; and the Governor of Wisconsin has proposed a law that would effectively strip government employee unions, particularly teachers, of much of their collective bargaining rights. Into this mix add the state of Pennsylvania where the governors Education Department nominee called for delaying objective performance tests for high school students noting that it was important that students should be able to pass the tests.
Common Sense has a couple of observations. Clearly Mr Tomalis, the Education Department nominee, believes that a significant number of Pennsylvania high school students could not pass the proposed tests. In other words, the education establishment in Pennsylvania at least is unable to actually educate enough students and if students are tested the results will be poor. Proof positive in Common Sense's view that education is broken.
Noteworthy as well is Mr Tomalis solution - don't test, at least until passing can be guaranteed! That amounts to arguing that the solution to incompetent and ineffectual education is to sweep it under the rug at least for a while. But what about the students that are being sent through the education system and not educated? What about the taxpayers that are spending money for education and not getting it? Isn't it time the education establishment started living in the real world where results matter? Common Sense thinks so.
Beyond that though there is an underlying assumption that high school students should be able to pass. That's something of a two sided notion. If education works then indeed the majority of students should be able to pass. But, and it's an important but, a high school diploma should not simply be an attendance certificate. Rather it should reflect a level of competency. As such not everyone would have the same competency and indeed some would not be sufficiently competent. Perhaps it's time to take an accomplishment view of high school.
Just a Common Sense POV.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Politics Evil Twin
Common sense occasionally shows its head as in this interesting opinion piece that is definitely worth a read. Briefly it notes that neither the left or the right really has a mandate. Rather Americans elect first one then the other in a seesaw search for the center. Common Sense definitely agrees.
That said, the article raises the interesting question of why neither Republicans or Democrats represent the center? Indeed, does the country need a third choice focused on the center?
Common Sense believes that the answer to the first question is that the extreme left and right so influence the nomination process that existing political parties have great difficulty in nominating centrist candidates. Examples of extremism influence, particularly outside money are common enough that they are no longer surprising. Consider Joe Lieberman who couldn't get nominated by his own party because well funded party extremist managed to defeat him in the party primary. Note that this left of center candidate won in the general election. Or consider the recent news about House Speaker R. John Boehner who isn't ideologically pure enough according to Tea Party founder Judson Phillips who thinks in the next primary he should be challenged.
Common Sense believes that so long as political parties continue to be controlled by their extremist elements this cannot change and that the United States Congress will continue to be an ineffectual hostage to the extremes.
One way to address this is to eliminate extremist influence in the nomination process. Such influence is largely financial. Largely money that comes from outside the actual election, money from outside the state, money from corporations and special interest. Were this money stopped it would, Common Sense believes, be much more likely that the nomination process would favor much more centrist candidates.
Common Sense also believes that it is long since past time that there was a third centrist party that represented the majority of American voters. Sadly, attempts to start a third party have not met with much success when competing against vested special interest that have virtually bought the Republican and Democratic parties. It is difficult to see how that can change until the American middle wakes up and decides that it's time to abandon the existing ineffectual two party system.
Just a common sense POV.
Common sense occasionally shows its head as in this interesting opinion piece that is definitely worth a read. Briefly it notes that neither the left or the right really has a mandate. Rather Americans elect first one then the other in a seesaw search for the center. Common Sense definitely agrees.
That said, the article raises the interesting question of why neither Republicans or Democrats represent the center? Indeed, does the country need a third choice focused on the center?
Common Sense believes that the answer to the first question is that the extreme left and right so influence the nomination process that existing political parties have great difficulty in nominating centrist candidates. Examples of extremism influence, particularly outside money are common enough that they are no longer surprising. Consider Joe Lieberman who couldn't get nominated by his own party because well funded party extremist managed to defeat him in the party primary. Note that this left of center candidate won in the general election. Or consider the recent news about House Speaker R. John Boehner who isn't ideologically pure enough according to Tea Party founder Judson Phillips who thinks in the next primary he should be challenged.
Common Sense believes that so long as political parties continue to be controlled by their extremist elements this cannot change and that the United States Congress will continue to be an ineffectual hostage to the extremes.
One way to address this is to eliminate extremist influence in the nomination process. Such influence is largely financial. Largely money that comes from outside the actual election, money from outside the state, money from corporations and special interest. Were this money stopped it would, Common Sense believes, be much more likely that the nomination process would favor much more centrist candidates.
Common Sense also believes that it is long since past time that there was a third centrist party that represented the majority of American voters. Sadly, attempts to start a third party have not met with much success when competing against vested special interest that have virtually bought the Republican and Democratic parties. It is difficult to see how that can change until the American middle wakes up and decides that it's time to abandon the existing ineffectual two party system.
Just a common sense POV.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Juxtaposed: failing schools and the race to nowhere
Two recent news items caught Common Sense's attention recently. One had to do with a White House DOE proposal for failing schools the other with placing undue burdens on children. The DOE proposal targets 5000 "dropout factory" schools and proposes, according to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, possibly firing an entire staff and bringing in a new one, replacing a principal or turning a school over to a charter school operator. The point, he said, is to take bold action in persistently low-achieving schools.
Juxtaposed is a recent film being shown in schools titled "Race to Nowhere." According to the film's web site:
It is clearly true that there are many failed schools in America. When compared to other countries American students rank somewhere between 15th and 25th in academic performance in math and science. Yet the United States spends several times more money both absolutely and per student than other countries with much better results. If American education is judged as a whole, it is a failure. Yet when talk with friends who are teachers, principals, and even college professors they have a litany of complaints including parents and students that don't, incompetent colleges, poor overcompensated management, and inept school boards. Juxtaposed systematic failure there is strong evidence that at least some schools are hyper competitive. So the common sense question is what's going on here and how we improve education in America.
Some argue that more money is needed. Yet as a nation we already spend far more than many other nations with much better student performance. Common Sense doesn't think money is the answer.
Consider that increasingly the United States is becoming a divided society. A society split along ethnic and economic lines. The worst of our schools are generally those in poor Black and Hispanic inner cities. Areas burdened by hopelessness, broken families, and drugs where education is not generally valued and the American dream seems all but dead. Schools in these areas are often abject failures. Yet there are exceptions. Schools in poor areas that do succeed. A few of these are public schools staffed by exceptional principals and teachers that do care and do succeed. Many are charter schools populated by students supported by parents that view education as a road out of poverty.
Common Sense thinks that this dual reality informs how to deal with America's education crisis. Are bad teachers and principals responsible. Some are and they should be fired. Are lazy students and uninterested parents to blame. Some are and they should not be allowed to destroy the education of other students who are interested in education. Are some schools in some neighborhoods such complete failures that they should be closed and replaced by charter schools. Some are and charter schools have generally outperformed public schools.
But how about this "Race to Nowhere?" Are we pushing students to hard? Common Sense thinks generally not. There is a notion, popular today, that our children and young people should have a responsibility free ride to a future good life. Common Sense thinks that notion wrongly encourages a world view and value system very inconsistent with reality. We live today in a world of global competitiveness. To succeed in that world our students need a first rate education. To get that education they'll need to work very hard indeed to acquire the skills needed to compete; to acquire a first rate education in math, science, reading, and history. Can we push our students to hard? Certainly, but Common Sense argues that more often than not we are not pushing hard enough.
Just a POV.
Juxtaposed is a recent film being shown in schools titled "Race to Nowhere." According to the film's web site:
Featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people across the country who have been pushed to the brink, educators who are burned out and worried that students aren't developing the skills they need, and parents who are trying to do what’s best for their kids, Race to Nowhere points to the silent epidemic in our schools: cheating has become commonplace, students have become disengaged, stress-related illness, depression and burnout are rampant, and young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired.These two news items clearly represent two very different views of American public education; failed schools on one hand and hyper competitive schools on the other. How can this be?
It is clearly true that there are many failed schools in America. When compared to other countries American students rank somewhere between 15th and 25th in academic performance in math and science. Yet the United States spends several times more money both absolutely and per student than other countries with much better results. If American education is judged as a whole, it is a failure. Yet when talk with friends who are teachers, principals, and even college professors they have a litany of complaints including parents and students that don't, incompetent colleges, poor overcompensated management, and inept school boards. Juxtaposed systematic failure there is strong evidence that at least some schools are hyper competitive. So the common sense question is what's going on here and how we improve education in America.
Some argue that more money is needed. Yet as a nation we already spend far more than many other nations with much better student performance. Common Sense doesn't think money is the answer.
Consider that increasingly the United States is becoming a divided society. A society split along ethnic and economic lines. The worst of our schools are generally those in poor Black and Hispanic inner cities. Areas burdened by hopelessness, broken families, and drugs where education is not generally valued and the American dream seems all but dead. Schools in these areas are often abject failures. Yet there are exceptions. Schools in poor areas that do succeed. A few of these are public schools staffed by exceptional principals and teachers that do care and do succeed. Many are charter schools populated by students supported by parents that view education as a road out of poverty.
Common Sense thinks that this dual reality informs how to deal with America's education crisis. Are bad teachers and principals responsible. Some are and they should be fired. Are lazy students and uninterested parents to blame. Some are and they should not be allowed to destroy the education of other students who are interested in education. Are some schools in some neighborhoods such complete failures that they should be closed and replaced by charter schools. Some are and charter schools have generally outperformed public schools.
But how about this "Race to Nowhere?" Are we pushing students to hard? Common Sense thinks generally not. There is a notion, popular today, that our children and young people should have a responsibility free ride to a future good life. Common Sense thinks that notion wrongly encourages a world view and value system very inconsistent with reality. We live today in a world of global competitiveness. To succeed in that world our students need a first rate education. To get that education they'll need to work very hard indeed to acquire the skills needed to compete; to acquire a first rate education in math, science, reading, and history. Can we push our students to hard? Certainly, but Common Sense argues that more often than not we are not pushing hard enough.
Just a POV.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Fairness in a Democracy - the tyranny of the majority
Current events in Wisconsin, several other states, and Washington have me thinking about democracy and majority rule. Just because some group is in the majority does that make anything they do right? Is strict majority rule just? Is it fair? Is it acceptable?
Common Sense thinks not!
Consider is it OK to kill Jews just because they are a minority? The obvious and generally accepted answer is no. We regard human life as sacred regardless of the minority status of some group. While that's an extreme example it does demonstrate the proposition that pure majority action is definitely not acceptable.
Lets try something less extreme, say is it OK to subject a group of employees to special treatment? Suppose Ford or GM decided to unilaterally take the actions the Wisconsin governor proposes. How would we feel about that? Would it be OK or would it be seen as a breach of contract and possibly a violation of the laws governing unions? The short version is that it wouldn't be OK and likely would breach law.
Is it OK then to apply those measures to Wisconsin teachers? Is it OK since the Republicans are in the majority to pass a union busting law? Common Sense thinks it's not.
Democracy works only when those governed see it as reasonably fair. Majority rule in the absence of fairness is just another form of tyranny. Consider that in our federal government we have a Senate with each state represented by two Senators regardless of the state's population. This organization reflects the founders fear of pure majority rule by the most populous states in the House. Consider as well that even within the Senate certain things require not a simple majority but a super majority to pass. Clearly some things are so important, so central to fairness, that majority rule is not fair and a broader consensus is needed.
Common Sense is no great fan of unions given their rather spotty history. But, and it's a very important but, when faced with big business or big government Common Sense recognizes that unions are one of the few mechanisms available to working men and women to achieve some measure of equitable negotiation. Common Sense thus believes that the proposed Wisconsin actions are grossly unjust. It is union busting plain and simple. Moreover, it is a case study in what is wrong with majority mob rule.
Common Sense thinks not!
Consider is it OK to kill Jews just because they are a minority? The obvious and generally accepted answer is no. We regard human life as sacred regardless of the minority status of some group. While that's an extreme example it does demonstrate the proposition that pure majority action is definitely not acceptable.
Lets try something less extreme, say is it OK to subject a group of employees to special treatment? Suppose Ford or GM decided to unilaterally take the actions the Wisconsin governor proposes. How would we feel about that? Would it be OK or would it be seen as a breach of contract and possibly a violation of the laws governing unions? The short version is that it wouldn't be OK and likely would breach law.
Is it OK then to apply those measures to Wisconsin teachers? Is it OK since the Republicans are in the majority to pass a union busting law? Common Sense thinks it's not.
Democracy works only when those governed see it as reasonably fair. Majority rule in the absence of fairness is just another form of tyranny. Consider that in our federal government we have a Senate with each state represented by two Senators regardless of the state's population. This organization reflects the founders fear of pure majority rule by the most populous states in the House. Consider as well that even within the Senate certain things require not a simple majority but a super majority to pass. Clearly some things are so important, so central to fairness, that majority rule is not fair and a broader consensus is needed.
Common Sense is no great fan of unions given their rather spotty history. But, and it's a very important but, when faced with big business or big government Common Sense recognizes that unions are one of the few mechanisms available to working men and women to achieve some measure of equitable negotiation. Common Sense thus believes that the proposed Wisconsin actions are grossly unjust. It is union busting plain and simple. Moreover, it is a case study in what is wrong with majority mob rule.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Eric Cantor at Harvard: America 'at a crossroads' on spending
Eric Cantor at Harvard: America 'at a crossroads' on spending
By Felicia Sonmez
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) outlined Republicans' economic vision on Thursday evening, saying in a speech at Harvard University that Washington must reduce the role of government in order to preserve America's role as the "crucible of innovation."
...
Cantor said that the key to American innovation lies in the success of the private sector, pointing to Republicans' emphasis on cutting spending, reducing federal regulations, replacing the national health care law and reforming the tax code. Those efforts, Cantor said, will "make it easier for intellectual capital and innovation to flourish again."
Mr Cantor has identified a key issue in the United States body politic; what is the role of the Federal Government? Much of what he argues favors government support of business particularly big business. Common Sense wonders though, is the proper role of government support of business, most particularly big business or is the proper role of government as outlined in the United States founding documents providing for defense of the country and promoting the general welfare of its citizens?
Common Sense believes that in recent years government has to often put the welfare of big business above the welfare of the governed. One need only look at tax codes that in the last 50 years have shifted the cost of government to private citizens and away from business. Consider that according to a recent GAO study two-thirds of all large U.S.- and foreign-controlled business operating in the U.S. managed to pay no (zero) federal income tax on a combined $2.5 trillion in sales from 1998 to 2005. Giving big business a free ride doesn't support innovation. Indeed study after study supports the notion that innovation comes from small businesses, particularly startups and venture funded efforts.
Common Sense wonders then if we're trying to improve the economy and reduce Federal deficits why do we continue to allow big business to pay no taxes? Are we at a crossroads? Certainly, but not the one Mr Cantor sees. Rather we need to get Congress to return to the welfare of the citizens and stop providing principally for the welfare of big business.
By Felicia Sonmez
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) outlined Republicans' economic vision on Thursday evening, saying in a speech at Harvard University that Washington must reduce the role of government in order to preserve America's role as the "crucible of innovation."
...
Cantor said that the key to American innovation lies in the success of the private sector, pointing to Republicans' emphasis on cutting spending, reducing federal regulations, replacing the national health care law and reforming the tax code. Those efforts, Cantor said, will "make it easier for intellectual capital and innovation to flourish again."
Mr Cantor has identified a key issue in the United States body politic; what is the role of the Federal Government? Much of what he argues favors government support of business particularly big business. Common Sense wonders though, is the proper role of government support of business, most particularly big business or is the proper role of government as outlined in the United States founding documents providing for defense of the country and promoting the general welfare of its citizens?
Common Sense believes that in recent years government has to often put the welfare of big business above the welfare of the governed. One need only look at tax codes that in the last 50 years have shifted the cost of government to private citizens and away from business. Consider that according to a recent GAO study two-thirds of all large U.S.- and foreign-controlled business operating in the U.S. managed to pay no (zero) federal income tax on a combined $2.5 trillion in sales from 1998 to 2005. Giving big business a free ride doesn't support innovation. Indeed study after study supports the notion that innovation comes from small businesses, particularly startups and venture funded efforts.
Common Sense wonders then if we're trying to improve the economy and reduce Federal deficits why do we continue to allow big business to pay no taxes? Are we at a crossroads? Certainly, but not the one Mr Cantor sees. Rather we need to get Congress to return to the welfare of the citizens and stop providing principally for the welfare of big business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)