The Commissioner of Education traditionally addresses the NJEA convention every year. But not this year. Acting Education Commissioner Rochelle Hendricks declined to take the opportunity to address tens of thousands of teachers on the grounds that the union has shows itself unwilling to work with Governor Christie to effect reform. Hendricks says her door is open if the union wants to discuss rewarding good teachers and replacing bad teachers.
On its face, this is just silly. Somehow, an invitation to talk is evidence of a refusal to work together. Truth be told, Governor Christie wants the NJEA as a political foil and not a partner in reform; Hendricks is merely following the Governor's lead.
Says union head Barbara Keshishian: "Acting Commissioner Hendricks’ refusal to engage in a discussion with professional educators in a professional development setting is astounding. The tone of Hendrick's e-mail is consistent with prior statements from the Christie administration: filled with political rhetoric and inaccurate characterizations of NJEA."
Not only is it astounding, it may be unconsititional. The New Jersey Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[p]ersons in public employment shall have the right to organize, present to and make known to the State, or any of its political subdivisions or agencies, their grievances and proposals through representatives of their own choosing."
In other words, the Governor and his administration have a Constitutional duty to work with the NJEA.
Truly, this is just another example of the Christie administration's willingness to ignore the law when it suits the Governor. Like the Governor's refusal to fund the public employee pension fund, even though he is legally obligated to do so. or the Governor's failure to balance the State budget (despite his claims to the contrary.)
Apparently, respect for the rule of law is no longer a conservative value.
Showing posts with label Public Employee Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Employee Unions. Show all posts
Friday, November 5, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Wall Street Journal Says Liberals Killed The ARC Tunnel
According to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, "Chris Christie sure has a knack" for shocking the political class on behalf of taxpayers. Christie struck a blow for taxpayers by cancelling the ARC Tunnel because of cost overruns. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was "stunned."
States the Journal:
"The [ARC] tunnel flap is a microcosm of the crowding out of public works caused by liberal governance around the country. In New York State, bridges like the Tappan Zee over the Hudson River are in desperate need of repair . . . The 6th Street Bridge in Los Angeles needs repair and earthquake retrofitting, but Sacramento is busted."
First of all, New York had a Republican governor from 1995 to 2007, and the mayor of New York City before independent Mike Bloomberg was Rudy Giuliani. And California has had Republican governors since 1991. So how can this be a liberal phenomenon?
It's the public employee unions, of course. The public employee unions have a stranglehold on state government, and are sucking the transportation infrastructure repair money out of the states in the form of pensions and health benefits and wage increases. See, it's public employee unions against taxpayers again -- that's the underlying meaning.
Second of all, the taxpayers whose property values will rise as a result of the ARC Tunnel are not being well served by the Governor. The taxpayers who pay for road maintenance are not being well served by the Governor, who is doing nothing to get cars off of the road. The taxpayers who breathe the air are not being served, either.
Third of all, Chris Christe cancelled the ARC tunnel to pull the press out of the room where Bret Schundler was throwing the Governor under the bus. Basically, Christie panicked and killed a deal with the NJEA that he knew about because he did not like the press he was getting. Then, when he was about the get more bad press about his previous panic, Christie panicked again and prematurely pulled the plug on the ARC Tunnel. And somehow that's a model of good choices in government.
It seems Chris Christie can't pass gas without the Wall Street Journal finding the Governor refreshing.
States the Journal:
"The [ARC] tunnel flap is a microcosm of the crowding out of public works caused by liberal governance around the country. In New York State, bridges like the Tappan Zee over the Hudson River are in desperate need of repair . . . The 6th Street Bridge in Los Angeles needs repair and earthquake retrofitting, but Sacramento is busted."
First of all, New York had a Republican governor from 1995 to 2007, and the mayor of New York City before independent Mike Bloomberg was Rudy Giuliani. And California has had Republican governors since 1991. So how can this be a liberal phenomenon?
It's the public employee unions, of course. The public employee unions have a stranglehold on state government, and are sucking the transportation infrastructure repair money out of the states in the form of pensions and health benefits and wage increases. See, it's public employee unions against taxpayers again -- that's the underlying meaning.
Second of all, the taxpayers whose property values will rise as a result of the ARC Tunnel are not being well served by the Governor. The taxpayers who pay for road maintenance are not being well served by the Governor, who is doing nothing to get cars off of the road. The taxpayers who breathe the air are not being served, either.
Third of all, Chris Christe cancelled the ARC tunnel to pull the press out of the room where Bret Schundler was throwing the Governor under the bus. Basically, Christie panicked and killed a deal with the NJEA that he knew about because he did not like the press he was getting. Then, when he was about the get more bad press about his previous panic, Christie panicked again and prematurely pulled the plug on the ARC Tunnel. And somehow that's a model of good choices in government.
It seems Chris Christie can't pass gas without the Wall Street Journal finding the Governor refreshing.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Chris Christie, Culture Warrior
It's clear -- the Wall Street Journal hearts Chris Christie. Last week, a lead editorial crowed that "New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has become the national pacesetter in state fiscal reform. . ." The Governor got his picture in the Wall Street Journal two times in one day within the past two weeks, once in connection with a lawsuit in Minnesota that had nothing to do with New Jersey (I'm sure Tim Pawlenty was none too pleased).
The focus of this love-fest is the Governor's on-going war against public employee unions, the latest salvo of which was launched a few weeks ago. The Governor unveiled a plan to reform public employee pensions by rolling back a 9% increase negotiated in 2001, eliminate cost of living adjustments for both current and future retirees, raise public employee contributions to retirement plans, make it harder to get disability benefits and lower the expected return on pension benefits from 8.25% annually to 7.5%. State workers would pay 30% of health costs, up from about 8% now, and retirees would face higher co-pays.
All of this moves State public employee health and retirement benefits closer to a private industry model, which the Wall Street Journal says is the right way to go. In fact, the Journal thinks the Governor does not go far enough, and should replace government pensions with 401(k) plans.
In an earlier op-ed, Steve Malanga of The Manhattan Institute discussed Governor Christie’s successful election campaign and the role of the NJEA. By way of reminder, the Manhattan Institute is the right-leaning think tank that issued a study showing that New Jersey’s Millionaire’s Tax caused wealthy citizens to flee the State. According to Malanga, the NJEA polled its own membership and found its members supported John Corzine by only a slight majority. Malanga posits that Christie has positioned himself on the right sife of a national anti-union culture war that has Republicans and Democrats alike distancing themselves from public employee unions.
Writes Malanga:
"Still, what we are seeing this year may mark a historic shift in American politics. If candidates around the country can repeat Mr. Christie’s strategy of winning office by taking on public unions, we could be witnessing a change akin to what happened in the late 1970s, when tax revolts in a handful of states created a nationwide momentum that eventually reflected Ronald Reagan.
The early 21st century version of tax rebellion is a head-on collision between over-burdened taxpayers and public sector unions. The many signs of union weakness suggest that after decades of expanding power, government-worker unions have met their match."
And interestingly, an article on a Minnesota court case which ran the same day as Malanga's op-ed featured a photograph of Chris Christie. The article discussed a law suit questioning whether or not Minnesota can curtail pension benefits for current retirees from state jobs. The article cited a February report from the Pew Center on the States estimates that, in the aggregate, the states face a trillion dollar gap between the pension, health care and other retirement benefits owed to public employees and the money states have set aside to pay for them. But since New Jersey is one of those states considering cuts to pension benefits for retired government workers, the outcome of the Minnesota case may impact plans in New Jersey and other states, so of course the only picture would be of Chris Christie.
So it would seem that the Wall Street Journal, now a part the Rupert Murdoch/ Fox News/ right wing echo chamber, is selling us a culture war which pits overburdened taxpayers against teachers, judges, police officer, firefighters and the like. The middle class against the middle class. And the solution is to turn state pensions over to Wall Street.
The focus of this love-fest is the Governor's on-going war against public employee unions, the latest salvo of which was launched a few weeks ago. The Governor unveiled a plan to reform public employee pensions by rolling back a 9% increase negotiated in 2001, eliminate cost of living adjustments for both current and future retirees, raise public employee contributions to retirement plans, make it harder to get disability benefits and lower the expected return on pension benefits from 8.25% annually to 7.5%. State workers would pay 30% of health costs, up from about 8% now, and retirees would face higher co-pays.
All of this moves State public employee health and retirement benefits closer to a private industry model, which the Wall Street Journal says is the right way to go. In fact, the Journal thinks the Governor does not go far enough, and should replace government pensions with 401(k) plans.
In an earlier op-ed, Steve Malanga of The Manhattan Institute discussed Governor Christie’s successful election campaign and the role of the NJEA. By way of reminder, the Manhattan Institute is the right-leaning think tank that issued a study showing that New Jersey’s Millionaire’s Tax caused wealthy citizens to flee the State. According to Malanga, the NJEA polled its own membership and found its members supported John Corzine by only a slight majority. Malanga posits that Christie has positioned himself on the right sife of a national anti-union culture war that has Republicans and Democrats alike distancing themselves from public employee unions.
Writes Malanga:
"Still, what we are seeing this year may mark a historic shift in American politics. If candidates around the country can repeat Mr. Christie’s strategy of winning office by taking on public unions, we could be witnessing a change akin to what happened in the late 1970s, when tax revolts in a handful of states created a nationwide momentum that eventually reflected Ronald Reagan.
The early 21st century version of tax rebellion is a head-on collision between over-burdened taxpayers and public sector unions. The many signs of union weakness suggest that after decades of expanding power, government-worker unions have met their match."
And interestingly, an article on a Minnesota court case which ran the same day as Malanga's op-ed featured a photograph of Chris Christie. The article discussed a law suit questioning whether or not Minnesota can curtail pension benefits for current retirees from state jobs. The article cited a February report from the Pew Center on the States estimates that, in the aggregate, the states face a trillion dollar gap between the pension, health care and other retirement benefits owed to public employees and the money states have set aside to pay for them. But since New Jersey is one of those states considering cuts to pension benefits for retired government workers, the outcome of the Minnesota case may impact plans in New Jersey and other states, so of course the only picture would be of Chris Christie.
So it would seem that the Wall Street Journal, now a part the Rupert Murdoch/ Fox News/ right wing echo chamber, is selling us a culture war which pits overburdened taxpayers against teachers, judges, police officer, firefighters and the like. The middle class against the middle class. And the solution is to turn state pensions over to Wall Street.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Public Employee Unions: The Gay Families of 2010
I've been reading press coverage of Governor Christie's proposal to resolve the property tax crisis in New Jersey. In case you don't know, New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the country, primarily because New Jersey's public schools are funded through property taxes.
So, the Governor wants to mandate a cap on property tax increases at 2.5% a year, unless voters in a given municipality approve a higher budget. And in order to sell that as a reasonable proposition, the Governor wants to give local governments a "tool kit" to help keep local costs down. The tool kit consists primarily of the ability to bust unions. For example, the state will cap pay raises (including wages, benefits, vacation time and other perks) for public employees at 2.5% a year, and allow any local government to opt out of civil service laws.
"People in New Jersey now feel as if there has become two classes of people in New Jersey: Public employees who receive rich benefits, and those who pay for them," says the Governor.
In so doing, once again the Governor is aligning himself with Republicans nationally. Writes the Wall Street Journal:
"Today's Democratic Party default is always higher taxes. Dominated by government-employee unions, they refuse to rethink government spending despite the steep recession. Last year six states raised income tax rates, and this year another five are attempting to do so. That didn't work so well in 2008 or 2009 in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey or Wisconsin -- states that still have budget holes even after trying to soak the rich."
New Jersey Senate Democrats approve of the concept of the "tool box," although not necessarily this particular assortment of tools. Senate President Stephen Sweeney says that he also favors civil service reform, but that the 2.5% cap goes too far. According to Sweeney, wealthier towns will regularly vote to exceed the cap, while middle class and poor towns will not. Meaning that there will be an even greater gap between the haves and the have-nots.
So the Republican Governor presents a "we"-"they" with "we" being taxpayers and "they" being public employees. And the Democratic Senate President presents a "we"-"they" where the "they" are the rich towns and the "we" are the poor and middle-class towns, but still lending credence to the concept that public employee unions are the problem. But since most public employees don't live in wealthy towns, Sweeney, the highest ranking Democrat in the State of New Jersey, is simultaneously labeling public employees as both "we" and "they". And I bet he sits up at night wondering how we got a Republican governor in this State.
Now, I have my issues with the NJEA and other public employee unions. I do believe that the world has changed in the last 30-40 years and that, much like the auto workers union before them, the public employees unions are going to have to become part of the solution. But I don't they they are the puppet masters of the Democratic Party and I don't think we can balance our budget on the backs of teachers, police officers and firemen.
And then it hits me. In 2004, 2006 and 2008, gay families were the culprit. Liberals were pulling the strings of the Democratic Party and pushing an agenda of gay rights that would destroy the American family. A vote for George Bush or John McCain or the Republican of your choice was a vote for the American family. When Joe Biden refused to support gay marriage in the Vice Presidential debate I decided I was voting for the Green Party candidate (whoever it was).
Public employee unions are the gay families of 2010. The Republicans say they are the problem; the Democrats won't support the unions and so the Republicans get to frame the debate. So we're not talking about sending corporate income taxes to private schools or reducing taxes on millionaires; we're not talking about how the Governor is pushing a right wing agenda on a largely Democratic state and using the financial hardship of taxpayers as political cover; we're just continuing the attack on the middle class by making it harder for public employees to remain part of the middle class.
So my advice to the public unions? Lay low and ride this storm out. I would bet that Chris Christie and his tea party fans are a passing fad, and that in 2012 the Democratic Party will need the unions again. And that will be the time for constructive discussion. But to come to the table now is to allow tea party Republicans to set the agenda, and that means that meaningful compromise will be impossible.
And then I would tell them to start advocating for gay marriage rights for its members. Really, at this point it the unions have nothing to lose by doing it.
So, the Governor wants to mandate a cap on property tax increases at 2.5% a year, unless voters in a given municipality approve a higher budget. And in order to sell that as a reasonable proposition, the Governor wants to give local governments a "tool kit" to help keep local costs down. The tool kit consists primarily of the ability to bust unions. For example, the state will cap pay raises (including wages, benefits, vacation time and other perks) for public employees at 2.5% a year, and allow any local government to opt out of civil service laws.
"People in New Jersey now feel as if there has become two classes of people in New Jersey: Public employees who receive rich benefits, and those who pay for them," says the Governor.
In so doing, once again the Governor is aligning himself with Republicans nationally. Writes the Wall Street Journal:
"Today's Democratic Party default is always higher taxes. Dominated by government-employee unions, they refuse to rethink government spending despite the steep recession. Last year six states raised income tax rates, and this year another five are attempting to do so. That didn't work so well in 2008 or 2009 in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey or Wisconsin -- states that still have budget holes even after trying to soak the rich."
New Jersey Senate Democrats approve of the concept of the "tool box," although not necessarily this particular assortment of tools. Senate President Stephen Sweeney says that he also favors civil service reform, but that the 2.5% cap goes too far. According to Sweeney, wealthier towns will regularly vote to exceed the cap, while middle class and poor towns will not. Meaning that there will be an even greater gap between the haves and the have-nots.
So the Republican Governor presents a "we"-"they" with "we" being taxpayers and "they" being public employees. And the Democratic Senate President presents a "we"-"they" where the "they" are the rich towns and the "we" are the poor and middle-class towns, but still lending credence to the concept that public employee unions are the problem. But since most public employees don't live in wealthy towns, Sweeney, the highest ranking Democrat in the State of New Jersey, is simultaneously labeling public employees as both "we" and "they". And I bet he sits up at night wondering how we got a Republican governor in this State.
Now, I have my issues with the NJEA and other public employee unions. I do believe that the world has changed in the last 30-40 years and that, much like the auto workers union before them, the public employees unions are going to have to become part of the solution. But I don't they they are the puppet masters of the Democratic Party and I don't think we can balance our budget on the backs of teachers, police officers and firemen.
And then it hits me. In 2004, 2006 and 2008, gay families were the culprit. Liberals were pulling the strings of the Democratic Party and pushing an agenda of gay rights that would destroy the American family. A vote for George Bush or John McCain or the Republican of your choice was a vote for the American family. When Joe Biden refused to support gay marriage in the Vice Presidential debate I decided I was voting for the Green Party candidate (whoever it was).
Public employee unions are the gay families of 2010. The Republicans say they are the problem; the Democrats won't support the unions and so the Republicans get to frame the debate. So we're not talking about sending corporate income taxes to private schools or reducing taxes on millionaires; we're not talking about how the Governor is pushing a right wing agenda on a largely Democratic state and using the financial hardship of taxpayers as political cover; we're just continuing the attack on the middle class by making it harder for public employees to remain part of the middle class.
So my advice to the public unions? Lay low and ride this storm out. I would bet that Chris Christie and his tea party fans are a passing fad, and that in 2012 the Democratic Party will need the unions again. And that will be the time for constructive discussion. But to come to the table now is to allow tea party Republicans to set the agenda, and that means that meaningful compromise will be impossible.
And then I would tell them to start advocating for gay marriage rights for its members. Really, at this point it the unions have nothing to lose by doing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)