...on something: the White House doesn't mind all this talk of the president's birth certificate. We just disagree on why:
Rove said he thinks that the Obama administration relishes the continued existence of the birther movement because it distracts from how the president is handling policy issues. “Look, these guys may be lousy at governing … but they’re damn good at politics,” he said. “It fits into the White House theme line.”
I think the White House is quiet about the birther movement because it makes their opponents look nuts.
(By the way, that's Delaware Congressman Mike Castle in the video above. You remember him; he's the guy who got beat in the Republican primary last year by a witch, Christine O'Donnell.)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
First George Will touted Mike Pence...
Under [Daniels], Indiana has its fewest state employees since 1978, the nation's lowest state government employment per capita, the lowest effective property taxes and the third-lowest per capita spending.
And all I can think is, so what? Is anyone from New York or California moving to Indiana? I didn't think so. Has George Will ever even been there? (He might find it a little different from Chevy Chase or Bethesda or wherever he lives.) Heck, I live in neighboring Illinois, and I don't know anyone who'd rather live in Indiana. (Sorry Hoosiers.)
One of the main reasons...
Ba-dum!
But while I was toiling away all those years, one thing I heard over and over (and over) again was how underpaid teachers were. And how, if our society really valued education, we'd pay these people more like their counterparts in the private sector. Makes sense; but money is always hard to find in a budget. So rather than pay teachers higher salaries, many districts tried to sweeten the pot by providing more benefits and better pensions. Again, makes sense: If you can't pay public employees competitively and if you effectively prohibit them from ever accumulating wealth, you'll have to compensate them in other ways in order to attract (and keep) talented people.
But now that the economy is in a recession, municipalities are trying to change the rules of the game. In a front page article in the Times today, "Angry Demonstrations in Wisconsin as Cuts Loom":
[Republican Governor Scott Walker] wants to require public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pensions, effectively cutting the take-home pay of many by around 7 percent.
He also wants to weaken most public-sector unions by sharply curtailing their collective bargaining rights, limiting talks to the subject of basic wages. (My emphasis and the subject of another post.)
Mr. Walker said he had no other options, since he is facing a deficit of $137 million in the current state budget and the prospect of a $3.6 billion hole in the coming two-year budget.
“For us, it’s simple,” said Mr. Walker, whose family home was surrounded by angry workers this week, prompting the police to close the street. “We’re broke.”
And it is simple; Wisconsin, like many states, is broke. So I sympathize with the governor. But then I read further:
Kim Hoffman, a middle school music teacher, said she and her husband, also a teacher, would lose $1,200 a month under the plan — too deep a cut to manage.
“I love teaching, but I’d have to start looking for another job, period,” she said.
And I know what you're thinking: Good luck, Ms. Hoffman; there just aren't that many jobs right now in the private sector. And you're right; times are tough.
Mr. Walker would require state employees to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pensions, where most now pay far less, and require state employees to pay at least 12.6 percent of health care premiums (most pay about 6 percent now). The average salary for a Wisconsin state worker is $48,348, according to a recent report by the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
It's important to remember that that $48,348 is the average salary; it includes everyone from the guy who picks up trash at the state parks to the governor himself. So while $48,000 looks like a lot of money when you're out of work, it's not so attractive when you're making $60,000 or so in the private sector in good times (with the possibility of much, much more).
So I guess my question is, do we value teaching, or don't we? Which is it? Because if we do, and we can't pay teachers competitively or even provide them security when times are tough, then how exactly are we going to attract good people? And if we decide that we can't attract good people, then we should just stop whining about the state of American education, admit that we consider it all glorified day-care anyway, and be done with it.
Either Americans want the government to provide services that the private sector can't, or they don't. (And I suspect that one of the lessons of this "tea party era" is that people do.) And if they do, they'll have to grow up, get realistic and pay for them.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Question: What do the Chicago Cubs...
...and the Grateful Dead have in common? (Besides using Bears in their logos.)
Answer: They both built their brands by "giving away" content.
The Chicago Cubs began broadcasting games on radio in the 1920s and, following World War II, allowed WGN to broadcast all home games (and some away games) on local television. While other owners were aghast at this practice, the Cubs built a loyal following despite mediocre play.
(It took time, however, as attendance at Wrigley Field was often so light that -- as late as the mid-1970s -- the upper deck was closed on weekdays. Today, as any Chicagoan will tell you, you can't get near the place -- at any time -- while Sox tickets often go begging.)
(It took time, however, as attendance at Wrigley Field was often so light that -- as late as the mid-1970s -- the upper deck was closed on weekdays. Today, as any Chicagoan will tell you, you can't get near the place -- at any time -- while Sox tickets often go begging.)
The Grateful Dead, while not the greatest rock band of the last half century (sorry, Dead Heads), may arguably have the most ardent following. Why? Among other factors (mostly psychedelic), the Dead -- unlike most bands -- encouraged the taping of its concerts (and sharing) by fans.
Why do I bring all this up? Because of a piece in the op-ed section of the Times today, "Would the Bard Have Survived the Web?"
The gist of it is that the theaters that emerged in sixteenth century England gave rise to such playwrights as Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, and, of course, William Shakespeare. It was these "paywalls" that allowed individuals to write professionally. Money quote:
As with much else, literary talent often remains undeveloped unless markets reward it.
(Don't even get me started on a pulp fiction writer like Scott Turow -- one of the authors of the piece -- comparing himself to William Shakespeare. I think the Yiddish term for that is chutzpah.)
The rest of it, as I'm sure you've guessed by now, is about the evils of the Internet:
Piracy is a lucrative, innovative, global enterprise. Clusters of overseas servers can undermine much of the commercial basis for creative work around the world, offering users the speedy, secret transmission of stolen goods.
While that's hard to argue with, I suspect what really bothers the authors of this piece is the idea of free content on the Web:
A rich culture demands contributions from authors and artists who devote thousands of hours to a work and a lifetime to their craft.
Not only do these writers want to get paid for their work (with which I can sympathize), but they also give the impression that amateurs should be discouraged from publishing as well. (See: Post, The Huffington.) And I find this a little offensive. It reminds me of the Church in the Middle Ages: "We're educated, we'll do the thinking, you just follow our lead." I'm sorry, but in the Age of the Internet, anyone can publish -- for free or otherwise -- and anyone can choose to read or ignore it. And the marketplace will sort it all out.
Just ask the Chicago Cubs or the Grateful Dead.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)