The Providence Journal online posted a poll question about how we feel about Gov. Walker's effort to strip unions of collective bargaining rights. I found myself conflicted. There is no doubt in my mind that negotiations with unions have resulted in unaffordable pension benefits which threaten communities all over the country. But is the solution to strip bargaining rights from unions?
The way I see it negotiations are similar to elections. Candidates argue for their side and we voters make our decisions in an election. If the results turn out to be disappointing we have the opportunity to do better at the next election.
If Governor Walker were in charge, his answer would simply be to do away with elections. Bad results from union negotiations are the result of bad decisions by those whom we have elected to do the best for us all. It is these people who must challenged and brought to task for their decisions, not negotiation itself.
Instead, I recommend that public union negotiations be made public - recorded and streamed for all to see. Governor Walker's solution is a threat to the democratic process.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
A community or an investment club?
A good local tax system has two requirements -(1) to raise funds to be used for the common good and (2) tax in a manner that distributes the burden fairly.
The first goal is met better by the property tax than any other tax. Calculations based on property values always produce the needed tax revenue. Whether values rise or fall, the tax rate adjusts to meet the need.
The fair distribution of the burden however falls miserably short.
I asked an economist once if he thought it was fair to use property value to determine one’s fair share of the tax burden. He answered, ‘maybe not but it is easy’. The truth is that our present method is more like an investment club where those whose “investments” don’t do well one year are compensated for their “loss” by the ones whose investments did better.
In a non-revaluation year property owners are taxed in direct proportion the the needs of their community - as levies rise, tax rates rise to provide the needed funds, and everyone is taxed proportionately. While it may be more than we'd like, it’s rational and it's fair.
But as values rise, new buyers were taxed on old, often lower assessments, and this is clearly unfair.
The solution we use is a triennial revaluation. New buyers will now pay a tax based on the market value of their property, which is fair, at least every third year. The effect of reassessments on the rest of the population however, is troubling.
Rational increases that reflect tax levies are not possible with a revaluation. Instead, there are swings in tax increases and decreases that boggle the mind with some owners getting 50-100% increases!
One result of such onerous increases is a breakdown in morale and community spirit and people react in the only way available to them. They blame excess spending and they question the accuracy of their assessments, when in fact, the ancient method of reassessing everyone is much more to blame.
We use a system of taxes that effectively takes money from some tax payers (the ones with increases greater than the levy) and transfers it to others whose values didn't rise as much. This transfer is of no benefit to the community, costs a lot to calculate, (revaluations are expensive), and most often, the transfer has been from the owners of lower valued property to those with higher valued property - not exactly fair or rational.
Let’s make up our minds - shall we tax using a system that treats our homes and properties as merely part of an investment club, or shall we all share the tax burden in a manner that’s good for the community fairly and reasonably?
It's about time Rhode Island adopts a Property Tax system to be proud of.
To see how, please visit http://righttax.org
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
"An excuse to do nothing."
I received this letter from a Rhode Island Representative whom I contacted about an issue:
"I understand how hard you have worked on these ideas over the years. I really wish I could offer you some encouragement but the Assembly just isn't ready for it. Sorry to disappoint,"
This was my answer:
For me the "Assembly" is people, individuals. Unless individuals are ready, of course the "Assembly" won't be ready. I'll keep trying, one at a time.
One of my least favorite phrases is "We as a society", as in "When we as a society demand action on.....something.....then something will get done".
It's a cop out. Society is people. When people want to do something about litter for example, they'll pick up litter, individually, when they see it. Waiting for "society" means I don't have to do anything until everyone does it. And the results are everywhere around us. Just an excuse to do nothing.
So far I have had no response.
So far I have had no response.
Maybe it's just me.
Monday, February 7, 2011
"Better, better, better, better"
In a recent front page article "Taking aim at state spending", the Providence Journal quoted a tea party member who said "My thing is cut, cut, cut, cut". I'd like to suggest a new slogan: "Better, better, better, better".
As we know, Rhode Island has among the highest property taxes in the nation, about fifth highest. However, if our student performance were best in the nation, if we had among the best roads, bridges and infrastructure in the country, those fifth highest property taxes would be a bargain.
Cut, cut cut, cut is a mindless, thoughtless reaction to a complex problem. Both the left and the right are guilty of a tunnel vision solution to every problem we face and we must share in the blame for letting legislators, both local and national, get away with it.
As we know, Rhode Island has among the highest property taxes in the nation, about fifth highest. However, if our student performance were best in the nation, if we had among the best roads, bridges and infrastructure in the country, those fifth highest property taxes would be a bargain.
Cut, cut cut, cut is a mindless, thoughtless reaction to a complex problem. Both the left and the right are guilty of a tunnel vision solution to every problem we face and we must share in the blame for letting legislators, both local and national, get away with it.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Off to see the wizard
The front page article in the Journal, January 6, 2011, "Graduation rules face initial test" was breathtaking. The percentage of students in the lowest achievement categories was beyond discouraging. Anyone unconcerned is a character from Oz, either the "Scarecrow" or "Tin Woodsman" - no brains or no heart.
As I think about graduation criteria raised in the article it makes me also question merit pay as a litmus test for teachers.
I see a dedicated, talented, hard working teacher in one of the worst performing schools, not earning as much as a teacher working half as hard in one of the most affluent towns.
On the other hand there are teachers who show up every day, uninterested, bored but due to seniority, have little fear of losing their jobs. They need to be dismissed.
We humans prefer simplicity, sharply defined edges, black vs white choices. I remember how much more I preferred multiple choice exams to essay questions. So much easier.
Well that's too bad because life just isn't that easy and pretending it is produces what's all around us; people behaving as simpletons, demonizing anyone, any group, different from them. It's as true in Washington as it is locally, maybe more so.
Perhaps when we understand ourselves better we might make better decisions and better choices and better laws and find the yellow brick road. I sure hope so.
As I think about graduation criteria raised in the article it makes me also question merit pay as a litmus test for teachers.
I see a dedicated, talented, hard working teacher in one of the worst performing schools, not earning as much as a teacher working half as hard in one of the most affluent towns.
On the other hand there are teachers who show up every day, uninterested, bored but due to seniority, have little fear of losing their jobs. They need to be dismissed.
We humans prefer simplicity, sharply defined edges, black vs white choices. I remember how much more I preferred multiple choice exams to essay questions. So much easier.
Well that's too bad because life just isn't that easy and pretending it is produces what's all around us; people behaving as simpletons, demonizing anyone, any group, different from them. It's as true in Washington as it is locally, maybe more so.
Perhaps when we understand ourselves better we might make better decisions and better choices and better laws and find the yellow brick road. I sure hope so.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Making it Easier to Hate
There is a line in one of my favorite Broadway Musicals, South Pacific, that says, "You've got to be taught to hate and fear...,". Indeed, that's how we make it easier for our soldiers to kill. Part of the technique is to remove ambiguity. By creating a one dimensional image of the enemy it is much easier to encourage the desired behavior toward them. "Japs", "gooks", "chinks", "krauts", all words designed to dehumanize, to remove individualism, to make it easier to hate.
In a recent Commentary in the Providence Journal on January 2, 2011, the author makes the case that "some interpretations of Islam" are responsible for 9/11. While this might be strictly true, the implication, the unsaid words, coupled with our need for unambiguous direction, clearly point an accusing finger at the 'enemy' - Muslims and Islam.
This apparent need to make one's point by painting with too broad a brush, by demonizing the "other", by trying to reduce the complexity of issues to the fewest elements, by trying to eliminate or at least reduce ambiguity, is evident everywhere, from local politics all the way to Washington and the results are painfully obvious.
Worried about huge deficits and spending? You're anti-worker, anti-union.
Want to assure fair wages for workers? You must be a Socialist or a Communist.
Wake up before we do something really stupid. Nuclear war anyone?
In a recent Commentary in the Providence Journal on January 2, 2011, the author makes the case that "some interpretations of Islam" are responsible for 9/11. While this might be strictly true, the implication, the unsaid words, coupled with our need for unambiguous direction, clearly point an accusing finger at the 'enemy' - Muslims and Islam.
"Conservative wing-nuts", "Pinko liberals", "Commie progressives", "Tea-bagger Nazis". Makes it so much easier doesn't it?
This apparent need to make one's point by painting with too broad a brush, by demonizing the "other", by trying to reduce the complexity of issues to the fewest elements, by trying to eliminate or at least reduce ambiguity, is evident everywhere, from local politics all the way to Washington and the results are painfully obvious.
Worried about huge deficits and spending? You're anti-worker, anti-union.
Want to assure fair wages for workers? You must be a Socialist or a Communist.
Wake up before we do something really stupid. Nuclear war anyone?
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Open Letter to the NK School Committee
To the NK School Committee,
Clearly the US is falling behind globally. If we expect better scientists we need to improve science education. If we want more talented engineers and mathematicians we need better math and physics courses.
I would like to ask you if our schools are preparing students to become our best politicians and legislators? Is the educational system preparing them to become the political leaders our cities, states and country need to succeed in the future?
I can recall as a high school student that the most boring class I took was called 'civics'. Perhaps we are witnessing the consequences of that mistake. Is the school system creating excitement and respect among our students who will become our future leaders? Are we creating an atmosphere that excites and inspires?
I looked through the online curriculum at the NKHS Social Studies section and found nothing that relates to local government and contemporary local issues. Instead I found history. Certainly important, but it's not anything that will engage students with their real world as it surrounds and effects them today.
Perhaps I've missed something. I would love to be corrected.
Respectfully,
Clearly the US is falling behind globally. If we expect better scientists we need to improve science education. If we want more talented engineers and mathematicians we need better math and physics courses.
I would like to ask you if our schools are preparing students to become our best politicians and legislators? Is the educational system preparing them to become the political leaders our cities, states and country need to succeed in the future?
I can recall as a high school student that the most boring class I took was called 'civics'. Perhaps we are witnessing the consequences of that mistake. Is the school system creating excitement and respect among our students who will become our future leaders? Are we creating an atmosphere that excites and inspires?
I looked through the online curriculum at the NKHS Social Studies section and found nothing that relates to local government and contemporary local issues. Instead I found history. Certainly important, but it's not anything that will engage students with their real world as it surrounds and effects them today.
Perhaps I've missed something. I would love to be corrected.
Respectfully,
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Just Wondering
I think of myself as a pretty liberal guy but the Virginia judge had a point when he ruled against the federal requirement that all citizens buy health insurance. Perhaps the only constitutionally acceptable requirement would be for those people who use federal health insurance such as the VA.
On the other hand those who complain that it is wrong for young people to have to buy insurance so older people can have health care seems to indicate a certain level of, forgive me, stupidity. Do they really not know that is exactly how insurance works? Insurance companies make tons of money by collecting premiums from enough people who don't use it to pay for those that do, plus a tidy little profit.
Still there might be a legitimate constitutional argument against the federal government mandating insurance.
Perhaps instead the federal government can make it a requirement for federal reimbursement for health care contingent on a certain level of mandatory insurance required by those states. If they refuse to require health insurance for its citizens then they will risk forgoing federal reimbursement for health care.
Can't have it both ways.
Maybe It's Just Me.
On the other hand those who complain that it is wrong for young people to have to buy insurance so older people can have health care seems to indicate a certain level of, forgive me, stupidity. Do they really not know that is exactly how insurance works? Insurance companies make tons of money by collecting premiums from enough people who don't use it to pay for those that do, plus a tidy little profit.
Still there might be a legitimate constitutional argument against the federal government mandating insurance.
Perhaps instead the federal government can make it a requirement for federal reimbursement for health care contingent on a certain level of mandatory insurance required by those states. If they refuse to require health insurance for its citizens then they will risk forgoing federal reimbursement for health care.
Can't have it both ways.
Maybe It's Just Me.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Maybe it's just me but the placement of two letters to the editor in the Thursday Dec. 2, 2010, Providence Journal caught my eye for two reasons; first, the 'right' position was on the left side and the 'left' position was on the right side. Just a coincidence?
But the second, more important reason was, that here, in two letters, side by side, we see a larger national problem.
One author paints the unions as the victims of greedy corporations, doing the same as they do.
The other author paints the unions as villains out to destroy private enterprise and the public.
The facts suggest that there is truth and blame on both sides.
Public sector unions have made it difficult for municipalities to deliver services that people can afford. Compared to the private sector, their retirement benefits are most enviable and in some cases rather outrageous.
Their interest ultimately is not for the welfare of the people but themselves.
The corporate world complains that unions make it impossible for them to compete and that the unions are responsible for outsourcing jobs. Still, their profits are the highest in history.
Their interest ultimately is not for the welfare of the people but themselves.
One of the pillars of America is our court system. It is an adversarial system where justice requires the presence of a judge whose job it is to be sure the rules are followed and fairness prevails, and an impartial jury whose job it is to render a verdict after hearing both sides.
It isn't working well in the public arena. We are the 'jury' but we clearly don't listen openly to both sides of an issue; and the laws, which, like judges, try to assure the rules are followed, have failed miserably, replaced by lobbyists and donations from both sides.
Let us hope that both sides soon wake up and take a hard look in the mirror.
But the second, more important reason was, that here, in two letters, side by side, we see a larger national problem.
One author paints the unions as the victims of greedy corporations, doing the same as they do.
The other author paints the unions as villains out to destroy private enterprise and the public.
The facts suggest that there is truth and blame on both sides.
Public sector unions have made it difficult for municipalities to deliver services that people can afford. Compared to the private sector, their retirement benefits are most enviable and in some cases rather outrageous.
Their interest ultimately is not for the welfare of the people but themselves.
The corporate world complains that unions make it impossible for them to compete and that the unions are responsible for outsourcing jobs. Still, their profits are the highest in history.
Their interest ultimately is not for the welfare of the people but themselves.
One of the pillars of America is our court system. It is an adversarial system where justice requires the presence of a judge whose job it is to be sure the rules are followed and fairness prevails, and an impartial jury whose job it is to render a verdict after hearing both sides.
It isn't working well in the public arena. We are the 'jury' but we clearly don't listen openly to both sides of an issue; and the laws, which, like judges, try to assure the rules are followed, have failed miserably, replaced by lobbyists and donations from both sides.
Let us hope that both sides soon wake up and take a hard look in the mirror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)