Just one more solid plank in the GOP's pro-growth, pro-jobs platform. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021505223.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
" . . . the cuts - a net of $59 billion in the last half of fiscal 2011 - would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That's nearly 1 million jobs - possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession."
This brings up the question I can never seem to get answered: why deficit reduction now? Why not in 2012, when tax receipts are (knock wood) up?
Quote from: we vs us on February 16, 2011, 09:02:17 AM
Just one more solid plank in the GOP's pro-growth, pro-jobs platform. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021505223.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
" . . . the cuts - a net of $59 billion in the last half of fiscal 2011 - would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That's nearly 1 million jobs - possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession."
This brings up the question I can never seem to get answered: why deficit reduction now? Why not in 2012, when tax receipts are (knock wood) up?
It's what they think they promised.
If it passes and does that kind of damage, they'll pass the buck.
LOL! I think I would have to see Lilly's "usual multipliers." After all he is the former director of campaign services for the Democratic National Committee. I would assume that the "usual multipliers" are the same that were used to come up with the 2009 determination that the stimulus "created or saved 650,000 jobs" as unemployment skyrocketed.
Quoteusing the usual multipliers, [Lilly] calculated that the cuts - a net of $59 billion in the last half of fiscal 2011 - would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That's nearly 1 million jobs - possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession.
I also admit my bias, in that I believe 1 private sector job is worth 100 government jobs. Private sector jobs produce. Government produces nothing. A government job is simply a financial liability on the people. Not to say that government jobs don't serve an important purpose, some do. However from a budgetary standpoint they are a negative on the balance sheet.
One single man milking cows, or building houses has more impact on the economy than a platoon of government workers paid twice as much with 5 times the benefits. Perhaps we should teach them to milk cows.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2011, 09:28:16 AM
I also admit my bias, in that I believe 1 private sector job is worth 100 government jobs. Private sector jobs produce. Government produces nothing. A government job is simply a financial liability on the people. Not to say that government jobs don't serve an important purpose, some do. However from a budgetary standpoint they are a negative on the balance sheet.
Yeah, all those teachers, cops weathermen, air traffic controllers and soldiers just suck. Can them all. Damn freeloaders.
Quote from: swake on February 16, 2011, 09:33:39 AM
Yeah, all those teachers, cops weathermen, air traffic controllers and soldiers just suck. Can them all. Damn freeloaders.
Actually since the cuts are focused, those are not the departments at risk. Thanks for playing. Most of the cuts are program based.
• Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30M
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899M
• Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M
• Nuclear Energy -$169M
• Fossil Energy Research -$31M
• Clean Coal Technology -$18M
• Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M
• Energy Information Administration -$34M
• Office of Science -$1.1B
• Power Marketing Administrations -$52M
• Department of Treasury -$268M
• Internal Revenue Service -$593M
• Treasury Forfeiture Fund -$338M
• GSA Federal Buildings Fund -$1.7B
• ONDCP -$69M
• International Trade Administration -$93M
• Economic Development Assistance -$16M
• Minority Business Development Agency -$2M
• National Institute of Standards and Technology -$186M
• NOAA -$336M
• National Drug Intelligence Center -$11M
• Law Enforcement Wireless Communications -$52M
• US Marshals Service -$10M
• FBI -$74M
• State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance -$256M
• Juvenile Justice -$2.3M
• COPS -$600M
• NASA -$379M
• NSF -$139M
• Legal Services Corporation -$75M
• EPA -$1.6B
• Food Safety and Inspection Services -$53M
• Farm Service Agency -$201M
• Agriculture Research -$246M
• Natural Resource Conservation Service -$46M
• Rural Development Programs -$237M
• WIC -$758M
• International Food Aid grants -$544M
• FDA -$220M
• Land and Water Conservation Fund -$348M
• National Archives and Record Service -$20M
• DOE Loan Guarantee Authority -$1.4B
• EPA ENERGY STAR -$7.4M
• EPA GHG Reporting Registry -$9M
• USGS -$27M
• EPA Cap and Trade Technical Assistance -$5M
• EPA State and Local Air Quality Management -$25M
• Fish and Wildlife Service -$72M
• Smithsonian -$7.3M
• National Park Service -$51M
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund -$700M
• Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -$250M
• EPA Brownfields -$48M
• Forest Service -$38M
• National Endowment for the Arts -$6M
• National Endowment for the Humanities -$6M
• Job Training Programs -$2B
• Community Health Centers -$1.3B
• Maternal and Child Health Block Grants -$210M
• Family Planning -$327M
• Poison Control Centers -$27M
• CDC -$755M
• NIH -$1B
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services -$96M
• LIHEAP Contingency fund -$400M
• Community Services Block Grant -$405M
• High Speed Rail -$1B
• FAA Next Gen -$234M
• Amtrak -$224M
• HUD Community Development Fund -$530M
(http://skoola.com/public_pics/64522crocodile-tears.jpg)
No time is ever going to be the best time to start thinning out government, we have to start at some point. Instead of being concerned about legacies like how much unemployment dropped under a leader's watch, we need more altruism in government.
I'm tired of the ridiculous mantra that government is necessarily large and complicated. There is absolutely no reason for it to be as large as it is other than we've created layer after layer of bureaucracy to oversee other bureaucracies which weren't effective enough, or ones which were created out of nothing more than patronage.
Belt tightening is inevitable. Yes austerity is painful, but you eventually get past it. Jobs and functions which are "essential" can be contracted back to the government thus creating opportunities for new businesses and private sector jobs.
Anyone notice the only people screaming about merging functions at the state level are department heads who are trying to protect their job? What's particularly alarming is lobbyists who are chiming in about the dangers of government cuts. Well of course they are.
The government needs to be subject to the people, not the other way around.
Well this is just stupid
Family Planning -$327M
and
WIC -$758M
So you want to cut people getting birth control then cut the programs to pay for the kids they have and can't afford. I am sure that $327M probably pays for itself in lower welfare costs.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services -$96M Then those people end up in Prison. Getting somebody help and staying on their meds pays for itself. Prison is expensive!
Should be +$327M for family planning - 758M WIC. Where is the welfare welfare in all of this.
I didn't see it spelled out in Gaspar's list with a quick read, but I did see the other day the Pentagon is requesting $42 bln less this year. Good to see the military doing their part as well.
Quote from: Trogdor on February 16, 2011, 09:49:23 AM
Well this is just stupid
Family Planning -$327M
and
WIC -$758M
So you want to cut people getting birth control then cut the programs to pay for the kids they have and can't afford. I am sure that $327M probably pays for itself in lower welfare costs.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services -$96M Then those people end up in Prison. Getting somebody help and staying on their meds pays for itself. Prison is expensive!
There's a lot of duplication through various agencies and budgets and you are also making the assumption that those cuts necessarily mean a reduction in benefits or that the benefits were useful in the first place. You also fail to realize that $327 mm in family planning isn't all spent on birth control devices.
The idea these people will all be turned out is nothing but hysterics.
For every $100mm budget, there's a good percentage of money being spent which does not directly benefit the people it's intended for.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2011, 09:40:28 AM
Actually since the cuts are focused, those are not the departments at risk. Thanks for playing. Most of the cuts are program based.
• Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30M
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899M
• Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M
• Nuclear Energy -$169M
• Fossil Energy Research -$31M
• Clean Coal Technology -$18M
• Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M
• Energy Information Administration -$34M
• Office of Science -$1.1B
• Power Marketing Administrations -$52M
• Department of Treasury -$268M
• Internal Revenue Service -$593M
• Treasury Forfeiture Fund -$338M
• GSA Federal Buildings Fund -$1.7B
• ONDCP -$69M
• International Trade Administration -$93M
• Economic Development Assistance -$16M
• Minority Business Development Agency -$2M
• National Institute of Standards and Technology -$186M
• NOAA -$336M
• National Drug Intelligence Center -$11M
• Law Enforcement Wireless Communications -$52M
• US Marshals Service -$10M
• FBI -$74M
• State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance -$256M
• Juvenile Justice -$2.3M
• COPS -$600M
• NASA -$379M
• NSF -$139M
• Legal Services Corporation -$75M
• EPA -$1.6B
• Food Safety and Inspection Services -$53M
• Farm Service Agency -$201M
• Agriculture Research -$246M
• Natural Resource Conservation Service -$46M
• Rural Development Programs -$237M
• WIC -$758M
• International Food Aid grants -$544M
• FDA -$220M
• Land and Water Conservation Fund -$348M
• National Archives and Record Service -$20M
• DOE Loan Guarantee Authority -$1.4B
• EPA ENERGY STAR -$7.4M
• EPA GHG Reporting Registry -$9M
• USGS -$27M
• EPA Cap and Trade Technical Assistance -$5M
• EPA State and Local Air Quality Management -$25M
• Fish and Wildlife Service -$72M
• Smithsonian -$7.3M
• National Park Service -$51M
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund -$700M
• Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -$250M
• EPA Brownfields -$48M
• Forest Service -$38M
• National Endowment for the Arts -$6M
• National Endowment for the Humanities -$6M
• Job Training Programs -$2B
• Community Health Centers -$1.3B
• Maternal and Child Health Block Grants -$210M
• Family Planning -$327M
• Poison Control Centers -$27M
• CDC -$755M
• NIH -$1B
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services -$96M
• LIHEAP Contingency fund -$400M
• Community Services Block Grant -$405M
• High Speed Rail -$1B
• FAA Next Gen -$234M
• Amtrak -$224M
• HUD Community Development Fund -$530M
I don't know what list you are reading, but there are cops, doctors, teachers all over that list. Not to mention scientists, doctors, infant services, heat for the poor, parks and safety inspectors of all kinds.
Quote from: swake on February 16, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
I don't know what list you are reading, but there are cops, doctors, teachers all over that list. Not to mention scientists, doctors, infant services, heat for the poor, parks and safety inspectors of all kinds.
Really? Which infants or cops are affected by energy efficiency and renewable energy? Which doctors are impacted by the power of marketing administration?
You see a bunch of street level public servants turned out by this, when in reality, there's a lot of mid to high level bureaucracy which eats up a fair share of that money before it ever hits the street.
Now let's see which party resorts to fear mongering. Our government has become unsustainable. That's why our debt is in the $14 trillion range and why we will still spend $700 bln more than what we will take in during FY '14. Just because our government can keep printing and borrowing money it doesn't have, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 09:54:41 AM
There's a lot of duplication through various agencies and budgets and you are also making the assumption that those cuts necessarily mean a reduction in benefits or that the benefits were useful in the first place. You also fail to realize that $327 mm in family planning isn't all spent on birth control devices.
The idea these people will all be turned out is nothing but hysterics.
For every $100mm budget, there's a good percentage of money being spent which does not directly benefit the people it's intended for.
Well since I fail to realize. What percentage of that 327 million would have been used for birth control devices?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2011, 09:28:16 AM
I also admit my bias, in that I believe 1 private sector job is worth 100 government jobs. Private sector jobs produce. Government produces nothing. A government job is simply a financial liability on the people. Not to say that government jobs don't serve an important purpose, some do. However from a budgetary standpoint they are a negative on the balance sheet.
Government workers do sometimes (often, in my experience) provide useful products and/or services. I wish Oklahoma's equivalent of Arkansas' Geographic Information Office could produce/collect half as much useful data used by half as many private companies, thus creating half as many increased efficiencies in said private companies.
And that's a nice list..kill off the basic research private companies won't touch and kick the poor and disadvantaged. Great plan!
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2011/02/federalworkforceshare-thumb-454x391-34851.jpg)
Not sure why government is too big, if gov employment is down over the last 50 years.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 10:43:55 AM
And that's a nice list..kill off the basic research private companies won't touch and kick the poor and disadvantaged. Great plan!
Come on Nathan you are above cheap hyperbole.
It seems we've all chimed in with our usual biases and we can all come up with stories of government efficiency and inefficiency to fit our own paradigms and to suit our argument. We are making great leaps at assuming these cuts all mean direct benefit cuts to people who really need benefits or cutting valuable services or valuable jobs. In many cases, there's duplication between agencies which can be consolidated effectively and jobs which can be outsourced more efficiently than being done in house.
I've worked on contracts directly with local, state, and federal and with government contractors for the better part of 20 years. I've dealt with the DoD, GSA, Park Service, EPA, USDA, etc. ad nauseum. In that time, I've observed some incredibly wasteful practices and worked with some people who are a disgrace to public service. I've also worked with some truly dynamic people who care about their job and they bring a taxpayer's approach to their job, not simply someone sucking the teat.
Cuts won't and don't have to be catastrophic. What's our alternative? Keep printing money or borrowing it from countries who don't like the US? Keep raising taxes on productivity which helps stifle economic growth? At some point, we all need to get used to the idea of
less reliance on the government in our day to day lives.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 11:07:56 AM
Cuts won't and don't have to be catastrophic. What's our alternative? Keep printing money or borrowing it from countries who don't like the US? Keep raising taxes on productivity which helps stifle economic growth? At some point, we all need to get used to the idea of less reliance on the government in our day to day lives.
How about we kill off the foreign adventures and stop cutting taxes? At some point, we need the security apparatus to stop sucking up vast sums of capital and blaming the red ink on social programs and research. (it would also be nice if they'd stop funneling half their budget to cost-plus contractors who deliver less bang for the buck than in-house employees)
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 11:18:57 AM
How about we kill off the foreign adventures and stop cutting taxes? At some point, we need the security apparatus to stop sucking up vast sums of capital and blaming the red ink on social programs and research. (it would also be nice if they'd stop funneling half their budget to cost-plus contractors who deliver less bang for the buck than in-house employees)
Agreed. I don't think we need any tax cuts right now. Cut spending, pay down our debts and maintain a safe balance for unforeseen emergencies. I'm still a major fan of the fair tax primarily because based on the way it is written with "pre-bates" based on income it's not regressive. It also gets rid of billions in loopholes which increases collections.
I suspect that if we started cutting back on all our largesse other countries might fill that gap. It would also help starve factions who profit from corruption which results from aid we give to other countries.We also need to quit trying to be the world's police force at every single turn.
Initial reports that Mubarek's wealth was in the $70 bln range really got my hackles up considering we've been funneling $1.3 bln a year to their military. We've also gotten really zero return out of all the money spent in Iraq. We should be getting tanker load after tanker load of cheap oil, yet my understanding is, China is who is getting cheap oil from Iraq.
I don't disagree that cuts are needed, but this list seems very slanted. I don't see a lot of republican preferred programs here (defense, oil subsidies).
Quite a few of the items on this list are projects with the potential to move us forward and to create jobs and industry (high speed rail).
If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 16, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.
I can live with that so long as the aforementioned giant elephant taking up half the room isn't exempt as he has usually been throughout the years.
Funny that they had to raise their own hand/trunk and volunteer.
Elephant: "Uh, Hi! I didn't see us on your fancy list, but we have several billion that we don't need"
Congress: "ssshhhhhh!!!"
Quote from: carltonplace on February 16, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
I don't disagree that cuts are needed, but this list seems very slanted. I don't see a lot of republican preferred programs here (defense, oil subsidies).
Quite a few of the items on this list are projects with the potential to move us forward and to create jobs and industry (high speed rail).
If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.
Actually, if you didn't catch it in my earlier post, the Pentagon is taking cuts as well. Looks like department of energy and energy related areas are taking cuts (of which the oil business is regulated by it).
I'm on Rep Cantor's email list for the "You Cut" program. I realize the majority of what he's putting out is partisan, but I do like a summary statement he makes that the debate used to be on what to spend now it's on what to cut. That kind of dialogue is going in the right direction. I don't necessarily agree with every cut and the partisan nature of some cuts, but we've got to start somewhere.
This week, the House is considering the largest single non-security discretionary spending cut in American history. This historic legislation, H.R. 1, will cut spending by at least $100 billion over the next seven months.
These are not easy cuts, but it is time for Congress to make the same tough choices that every American has already had to make in their own households and businesses.
Our purpose is clear – we aim to restore certainty, first by reducing spending, so that entrepreneurs and small businesses will be empowered to grow the economy again.
I want to make sure that you know how important you and the entire YouCut community have been to this debate.
When we first began the YouCut program, Washington was arguing over ways to spend more of your money – now, the debate is over how much should be cut.You should also know that this legislation includes several ideas proposed and supported by the YouCut community. For example, it eliminates funding for new federal buildings, terminates funding for NPR, and prohibits those promotional stimulus road signs. In total, this legislation completely eliminates 150 federal programs.
Click here to visit the YouCut website to learn more about H.R. 1 and then take a moment to let your family and friends know more about this historic legislation.
This is only the beginning.
Regards,
Rep. Eric Cantor
Majority Leader
P.S. This week, the House will be debating the largest spending cuts in modern history. Click here to learn more about this historic legislation.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 16, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
I don't disagree that cuts are needed, but this list seems very slanted. I don't see a lot of republican preferred programs here (defense, oil subsidies).
Quite a few of the items on this list are projects with the potential to move us forward and to create jobs and industry (high speed rail).
If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.
Show a single example, anywhere in the US, where high-speed rail is profitable. I think that was the gist of the cuts. Look at programs with the lowest returns and cut or eliminate them. Unfortunately most liberal programs produce the least return.
A better way to understand what is happening is to think of it this way. All of these wonderful programs are not being cut today. They were impacted back in 2009 when hundreds of billions of dollars was spent on a garbage truck of projects under the guise of stimulus and bailouts. Projects that had less than a measurable effect on unemployment.
This is simply the shifting of funds. The administration shifted these funds from the above programs to pay union salaries, and bury "shovel ready corpses" (the new term for infrastructural projects with no future maintenance budget).
The cuts only represent a small fraction of the money already spent by the administration. Agricultural Research will have to sponsor a few less grants to pay for the new sidewalks in Hulbert, and the new ADA crosswalks on the outskirts of Enid. The EPA will probably need to cut workforce to pay for new bridges North of Des Moines, IA. The Minority Business Development money was already spent on new carpet and light fixtures for the federal court house in St. Louis. The GSA, NIH, Amtrack, HUD, Office of Science, and Smithsonion can sleep well knowing that their budget was spent paying union salaries for GM.
The easy decisions (to spend) have already been made by the president. Now someone has to make the hard decisions. With the release of the president's budget this week, it is apparent that he does not intend to address this.
Quote from: swake on February 16, 2011, 09:33:39 AM
Yeah, all those teachers, cops weathermen, air traffic controllers and soldiers just suck. Can them all. Damn freeloaders.
These teachers are swake.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_16aacec2-39d8-11e0-af3e-001cc4c002e0.html
I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.
Quote from: guido911 on February 16, 2011, 01:46:46 PM
These teachers are swake.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_16aacec2-39d8-11e0-af3e-001cc4c002e0.html
I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.
With teachers like that, I'm convinced that the children benefited more from the lack of school that day than they would have if school were in session.
Thank God that doctors aren't union yet!
Quote from: guido911 on February 16, 2011, 01:46:46 PM
I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.
I rarely heard that anywhere I lived. It was almost always about teacher pay. I can understand that. I'd never want to be a teacher unless money was there and the support of parents/community was there.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2011, 01:28:35 PM
Show a single example, anywhere in the US, where high-speed rail is profitable. I think that was the gist of the cuts. Look at programs with the lowest returns and cut or eliminate them. Unfortunately most liberal programs produce the least return.
Show a single example, anywhere in the US, where a state's road system is profitable. Government is not a business, and should therefore not be run like a business nor use the same metrics of success as a business would. That said, our longer term goal should be to balance the books. Thankfully, we're already on track for that, even without this red meat for the base.
The funny thing is that the Republicans, while claiming they want to balance the budget, are working furiously to make the long-term outlook worse by repealing health care.
(I make that caveat because Acela service turns a profit, as do a few toll roads, but in both cases the system as a whole loses money)
Quote from: guido911 on February 16, 2011, 01:46:46 PM
These teachers are swake.
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_16aacec2-39d8-11e0-af3e-001cc4c002e0.html
I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.
Nice. You should make sure to include the context for these strikes, which is that the Wisconsin Governor (a new Tea Partier) has decided to essentially cancel all bargaining rights for public employees and call out the National Guard as a preemptive move against "unrest." (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-wisc-gop-governor-pushes-hard-for-rolling-back-workers-rights-by-decades.php)
Quote"In an interview with the Associated Press, Scott Walker proposed stripping nearly all government workers of their collective bargaining rights. And as a warning shot across the bow, he told Wisconsin reporters Friday that he's alerted the National Guard ahead of any unrest, or in the event that state services are interrupted. Under his plan, which he'll include in his forthcoming budget proposal, most state workers would no longer be able to negotiate for better pensions or health benefits or anything other than higher salaries, which couldn't rise at a quicker pace than the Consumer Price Index.
According to the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer "The proposal would effectively remove unions' right to negotiate in any meaningful way. Local law enforcement and fire employees, as well as state troopers and inspectors would be exempt."
He also says this plan is non-negotiable -- as in, he's cut off negotiations with prison guards, teachers and other state workers."
Show me a job in the private sector where I get the same benefits as a public sector worker.
Whining about getting too little money as a teacher when you knew what wages were going in is ludicrous. Also, pensions where you can retire at 50-55 are almost unheard of in the private sector anymore.
I guess I've always looked at teachers who complain about pay as being akin to the people who move in under the flight path to an airport which has been around 50 years then complain because of the noise. I had higher income aspirations than I could make as a teacher. I knew teaching was a lower paying profession than I wanted to be in.
You forget that teacher pay has failed to keep up with inflation (as it has in most non-managerial positions in the private sector). So yeah, they're getting even less than what they signed up for, as are most of us.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 03:54:46 PM
You forget that teacher pay has failed to keep up with inflation (as it has in most non-managerial positions in the private sector). So yeah, they're getting even less than what they signed up for, as are most of us.
Excuse me?
How is 31k + benefits fresh out of college for 10 months work not a fair salary?
http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14038956&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14038956&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
QuoteDENVER (AP) - Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he's sticking up for teachers' unions in states where governors have threatened to shut them down.
Duncan wrapped up a two-day summit of union organizers, school board members and school administrators in Denver by saying he's "very concerned" about calls by governors in several states to bar teachers from organizing, or to limit their powers to bargain for pay and benefit.
Duncan says he plans to place a personal call to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican who has proposed ending bargaining rights for teachers there.
The education chief's remark won applause from the audience. The summit on improving labor-management relations in schools was attended by representatives from about 150 school districts in 40 states.
Quote from: TeeDub on February 16, 2011, 04:03:40 PM
Excuse me?
How is 31k + benefits fresh out of college for 10 months work not a fair salary?
How is 31k + benefits 10 years in a fair salary?
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 04:39:50 PM
How is 31k + benefits 10 years in a fair salary?
I must admit, I was waiting for you to try that.... Unfortunately you have wage minimums set by state legislature. Lucky you. Again, too bad I can't get things like that in the private sector.
http://sde.state.ok.us/Teacher/Salary/default.html
Someone is lying. Either you or state statute. I think I know which one I put my money on.
If only the statute was as bulletproof as it seems. I know people who haven't seen a raise in a ridiculously long time because when they started only an associate's degree was required and the people in question had a bachelor's, but now a master's is required to move up the pay scale.
Moreover, most people who work in classrooms these days aren't actually teachers. They're teacher's assistants who get paid by the hour and who aren't covered by the law you cite.
Talk to TPS if you've got a problem with what they're paying.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 05:06:52 PM
If only the statute was as bulletproof as it seems. I know people who haven't seen a raise in a ridiculously long time because when they started only an associate's degree was required and the people in question had a bachelor's, but now a master's is required to move up the pay scale.
Moreover, most people who work in classrooms these days aren't actually teachers. They're teacher's assistants who get paid by the hour and who aren't covered by the law you cite.
Talk to TPS if you've got a problem with what they're paying.
Nope. I've posted the figures on other posts about education. Far more teachers than aides. I sure would appreciate it if people would at least read stats which are posted instead of creating new realities.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 04:39:50 PM
How is 31k + benefits 10 years in a fair salary?
It may not be a good salary but it fits the model of not evaluating teachers regarding pay for excellence.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 05:36:20 PM
Nope. I've posted the figures on other posts about education. Far more teachers than aides. I sure would appreciate it if people would at least read stats which are posted instead of creating new realities.
I go by what the teachers are telling me. Supposedly, TPS classrooms each have at least one aide and sometimes two, not counting special ed which may have more. What they're doing in Sand Springs, I can't say, as I don't know anybody who teaches there.
It's certainly possible I've misunderstood..I'll ask for clarification sometime.
Scumbag Wisconsin teachers dragging students to be props in their protest.
Abandon your jobs educating children and then turn around and use them. Nice.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
I go by what the teachers are telling me. Supposedly, TPS classrooms each have at least one aide and sometimes two, not counting special ed which may have more.
I don't think any classroom in TPS has two aides. Half the elementary classes have one aide and the others share an aide with another class.
Having the aide allows them to pay them less and still count it in the teacher-student ratio. It also allows the aide to control the classroom when the teacher isn't there so the district hires less substitutes to also save money.
Teachers salaries are an embarrassment. Other threads show the pathetic situation where they have not even stayed close to the horrendous performance of the minimum wage.
Nathan,
It isn't foreign adventures - it is imperialistic voyeurism.
And the budget contains 158 billion just for Iraq and Afghanistan. Which would have been done by now if we had actually finished taking care of the real problem way back in 2002 and 2003 instead of "Mission Accomplished". But that wouldn't have benefited Halliburton as much, would it?
And now, those new tea baggers in Congress have to decide about a $3 billion program cost increase for the F-35 fighter. Big move by Boner (Bush's term, not mine) to add another engine to the program at substantially increased cost. And not needed OR wanted by the military. Oh, and by the way, the companies involved would be in his district. No surprise, but continues the "Hypocritical Oath" they all take.
Does this sound reminiscent of the "Sergeant York" gun that Inhofe was so gung-ho about? Something with no real purpose, not wanted by the military, but would put money in a buddies pocket. (Yes.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 16, 2011, 11:50:19 PM
Teachers salaries are an embarrassment. Other threads show the pathetic situation where they have not even stayed close to the horrendous performance of the minimum wage.
Nathan,
It isn't foreign adventures - it is imperialistic voyeurism.
And the budget contains 158 billion just for Iraq and Afghanistan. Which would have been done by now if we had actually finished taking care of the real problem way back in 2002 and 2003 instead of "Mission Accomplished". But that wouldn't have benefited Halliburton as much, would it?
And now, those new tea baggers in Congress have to decide about a $3 billion program cost increase for the F-35 fighter. Big move by Boner (Bush's term, not mine) to add another engine to the program at substantially increased cost. And not needed OR wanted by the military. Oh, and by the way, the companies involved would be in his district. No surprise, but continues the "Hypocritical Oath" they all take.
Does this sound reminiscent of the "Sergeant York" gun that Inhofe was so gung-ho about? Something with no real purpose, not wanted by the military, but would put money in a buddies pocket. (Yes.)
Minimum wage simply is not a valid metric to compare. According to stats I've posted, many people holding bachelor's degrees aren't keeping up with increases in minimum wage either if that's the way you want to look at it.
People earning minimum wage also don't get a pension and don't have 100% paid health and dental insurance, paid holidays including fall, winter, and spring breaks in addition to most all federal holidays.
http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14047328&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14047328&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
QuoteRepublicans say a smaller government eventually will spur private-sector job growth. Many economists challenge that claim, noting that the government helps pays for research, infrastructure, education and other programs that provide both public- and private-sector jobs. GOP leaders already acknowledge that thousands of government workers would lose their jobs in the short run under the $61 billion cost-cutting bill House Republicans are pushing this week.
If that happens, "so be it," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "We're broke."
So there you have it.
Quote from: Townsend on February 17, 2011, 09:02:17 AM
http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14047328&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14047328&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
So there you have it.
The orange one has spoken...
Quote from: Townsend on February 17, 2011, 09:02:17 AM
http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14047328&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14047328&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
So there you have it.
His governmental theory is quite a contrast with, say, China, who is absolutely unafraid to use its government coffers to support the private sector with research and infrastructure investment.
It's gonna be pretty interesting to see who wins the future on those terms.
"We're broke"
Should we interpret that as "the covetous are ready to pull the slip out from under everybody"? It's not a matter of unequal yokes, but equal. If it was a matter of keeping sheep, oxen, and cattle, and as much increase that would come by that (accounting for feed and keeping the crib clean), and not a matter of pitting one against the other, yet, we are people, though we huddle ourselves after our own manner.
Quote from: we vs us on February 17, 2011, 10:09:37 AM
His governmental theory is quite a contrast with, say, China, who is absolutely unafraid to use its government coffers to support the private sector with research and infrastructure investment.
It's gonna be pretty interesting to see who wins the future on those terms.
They can still do that because they don't have the sweeping social programs we do. When a large percentage of your population is receiving support from an ever decreasing tax base, you start to face some serious issues.
Why not just keep piling more burdens on the backs of the taxpayers?
Quote from: TeeDub on February 17, 2011, 10:22:39 AM
They can still do that because they don't have the sweeping social programs we do.
Er . . . what? They were -- and still are, somewhat -- a communist country. That means sweeping social programs are the centerpiece of governance.
So yeah, they have nationalized healthcare, a pension system, and sundry social security problems. Interestingly, they have a pension problem that rivals our own (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/world/asia/20iht-china.4969919.html) (old article but I assume the subject is still pertinent).
Quote from: rhymnrzn on February 17, 2011, 10:19:08 AM
Should we interpret that as "the covetous are ready to pull the slip out from under everybody"? It's not a matter of unequal yokes, but equal. If it was a matter of keeping sheep, oxen, and cattle, and as much increase that would come by that (accounting for feed and keeping the crib clean), and not a matter of pitting one against the other, yet, we are people, though we huddle ourselves after our own manner.
How many times did you put that through the interpreter?
Quote from: TeeDub on February 17, 2011, 10:22:39 AM
They can still do that because they don't have the sweeping social programs we do. When a large percentage of your population is receiving support from an ever decreasing tax base, you start to face some serious issues.
Why not just keep piling more burdens on the backs of the taxpayers?
+1
The "they" is not the "they" they think it is.
"They can still do that because they don't have the sweeping social programs we do. When a large percentage of your population is receiving support from an ever decreasing tax base, you start to face some serious issues.
Why not just keep piling more burdens on the backs of the taxpayers?
So all we have to do is make sure that people can make a living wage and all that support issue will go away. But then, that would mean higher wages, which is anathema to the RWRE.
At one time the approach was;
To Democrats, low wages are the problem
To Republicans, low wages are the solution.
That difference is blurring, but not completely gone.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 17, 2011, 01:19:15 PM
So all we have to do is make sure that people can make a living wage and all that support issue will go away. But then, that would mean higher wages, which is anathema to the RWRE.
At one time the approach was;
To Democrats, low wages are the problem
To Republicans, low wages are the solution.
That difference is blurring, but not completely gone.
Low wages are important. A low minimum wage ensures that people continue to improve, educate, and innovate. It also opens a broader job base to young people and the poor. Creating a "Living Wage" reduces the overall number of positions available, and makes low-level workers less interested in taking action that will allow them to move up the income ladder.
Forcing companies to pay higher minimums causes them to work much harder at diminishing the number of entry level workers necessary to operate. I see this every day. I sell ERP systems. Software designed to take advantage of business intelligence and automate many of the systems that used to require employees. Recession has a similar effect on business as artificially inflated wage limits. I've made a good deal of money over the last year selling systems that eliminate warehouse, inventory, clerical, and low-level administrative employees.
High minimum wages hurt the young and poor the most. I have a meeting in 1 hour that will determine the fate of about a dozen minimum wage employees in a St. Louis warehouse. The cost of benefits, wages and other liabilities for those workers is about to meet the cost of an automated inventory system.
A rise in minimum wage perhaps to President Obama's proposed $9.50 would certainly make me a wealthier man, but it has a negative affect on the job market. The secondary affect is that it raises the price of goods and services to meet whatever gap is left.
Quote from: guido911 on February 16, 2011, 07:40:44 PM
Scumbag Wisconsin teachers dragging students to be props in their protest.
Abandon your jobs educating children and then turn around and use them. Nice.
O/T a bit. More from the fantastic Wisconsin teachers.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 17, 2011, 01:46:25 PM
A rise in minimum wage perhaps to President Obama's proposed $9.50 would certainly make me a wealthier man, but it has a negative affect on the job market. The secondary affect is that it raises the price of goods and services to meet whatever gap is left.
A rise in wages doesn't cause the price of goods to increase. Just greedy corporations trying to maintain that evil 8-15% profit margin
You're getting an automated warehouse system for 300 or 400 thousand?? Not much of a system.
Why not just ship all order fulfillment to India or China. Would only cost about $28,000.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 17, 2011, 01:46:25 PM
A rise in minimum wage perhaps to President Obama's proposed $9.50 would certainly make me a wealthier man, but it has a negative affect on the job market. The secondary affect is that it raises the price of goods and services to meet whatever gap is left.
Once again, common sense is nonsense.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 17, 2011, 09:21:11 PM
You're getting an automated warehouse system for 300 or 400 thousand?? Not much of a system.
Why not just ship all order fulfillment to India or China. Would only cost about $28,000.
Companies do that too.
Quote from: Hoss on February 17, 2011, 09:59:20 AM
The orange one has spoken...
Why didn't he breakout the waterworks over the people losing jobs in this speech?
Quote from: swake on February 18, 2011, 12:20:00 PM
Why didn't he breakout the waterworks over the people losing jobs in this speech?
dontcha know because it's those evil gubmint workers!
Wait, doesn't the Tanned One get his paycheck from the Gubmint?
Quote from: Hoss on February 18, 2011, 01:30:27 PM
Wait, doesn't the Tanned One get his paycheck from the Gubmint?
Just some of the over the table stuff
Quote from: Townsend on February 18, 2011, 01:36:50 PM
Just some of the over the table stuff
I was going to say, a small percentage
GOP votes to cut funding for Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. (Drudge for links). I won't miss any jobs lost from those cuts.
Quote from: guido911 on February 18, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
GOP votes to cut funding for Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. (Drudge for links). I won't miss any jobs lost from those cuts.
You'll enjoy the increased welfare rolls and higher insurance premiums, I'm sure.
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 02:44:15 PM
You'll enjoy the increased welfare rolls and higher insurance premiums, I'm sure.
Ugh, no kidding. How many more backwater Okie's will misunderstand how they got a baby?
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 02:44:15 PM
You'll enjoy the increased welfare rolls and higher insurance premiums, I'm sure.
Hyperbole alert
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 03:27:57 PM
It ain't hyperbole, it's statistics.
Really, what stats are those? Since it's all about what
would happen. It's pretty difficult to put good numbers to things which have not happened yet.
Does planned parenthood dictate sexual behavior for the majority of Americans or just those who can't prioritize family-planning issues on their own?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2011, 03:42:55 PM
Really, what stats are those? Since it's all about what would happen. It's pretty difficult to put good numbers to things which have not happened yet.
Does planned parenthood dictate sexual behavior for the majority of Americans or just those who can't prioritize family-planning issues on their own?
You are forgetting that part of this is specifically about those who ARE prioritizing family planning but can't afford to pay full price for drugs/procedures.
On the effects of the cuts, it depends on how they work it. If they lose the Title X funding they can do two things. 1) raise the cost of procedures on everything or 2) decrease the amount of people that qualify for their services. Title X is used for other things like cancer screenings as well as birth control. If they cut people off they might not get the screening/birth control at full price. So if the same number of people get the same service then it will have a net 0 effect.
I'm always amazed at how diversified the business of government has become.
(http://thumbnails.truveo.com/0001/4E/51/4E51E1A9303E349833A74D_Large.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2011, 03:42:55 PM
Really, what stats are those? Since it's all about what would happen. It's pretty difficult to put good numbers to things which have not happened yet.
Does planned parenthood dictate sexual behavior for the majority of Americans or just those who can't prioritize family-planning issues on their own?
Historical statistics can be used to make educated guesses about what will happen in the future. Lessened access to family planning services like low cost birth control and educational services, which are PP's main gig, leads to more births, especially among the poor. The poor are the ones who are much less likely to have insurance or be covered only by Medicaid. People who have no access to family planning advice and material are more likely to have more than two kids. People who have more than two kids while in poverty are less likely to be able to dig themselves out of poverty.
All this increases both welfare cost and overall health care costs. I guess if that's your thing, have at it, but quit complaining as your cost continues to rise as people get poorer and there are more poor people. Short of leaving people to die in the gutter, we all pay for people who can't pay for their own health care. Prevention is much less expensive than treatment, as I know you know.
And Gaspar, stop being a twit. As you're well aware, federal law prohibits federal funding from being used to subsidize abortions. This money isn't going to "pregnant no more," it's going to "not pregnant in the first place."
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 04:18:41 PM
Historical statistics can be used to make educated guesses about what will happen in the future. Lessened access to family planning services like low cost birth control and educational services, which are PP's main gig, leads to more births, especially among the poor. The poor are the ones who are much less likely to have insurance or be covered only by Medicaid. People who have no access to family planning advice and material are more likely to have more than two kids. People who have more than two kids while in poverty are less likely to be able to dig themselves out of poverty.
All this increases both welfare cost and overall health care costs. I guess if that's your thing, have at it, but quit complaining as your cost continues to rise as people get poorer and there are more poor people. Short of leaving people to die in the gutter, we all pay for people who can't pay for their own health care. Prevention is much less expensive than treatment, as I know you know.
And Gaspar, stop being a twit. As you're well aware, federal law prohibits federal funding from being used to subsidize abortions. This money isn't going to "pregnant no more," it's going to "not pregnant in the first place."
Money is in one pocket or the other. I promised my wife I wouldn't use any of the money in my wallet to buy beer this week. That's why I've been keeping my money in my front pocket.
Believe it or not I have no problem with planned parenthood. They keep the liberal voters down to a manageable level. Without this population control we would be over run with folks demanding everything from free healthcare to free lunches. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 04:41:48 PM
Money is in one pocket or the other. I promised my wife I wouldn't use any of the money in my wallet to buy beer this week. That's why I've been keeping my money in my front pocket.
So what you're saying is that if I was to get a small business loan and I later donated some of my profit to PP and earmarked it for abortions, the government would be funding abortion? Awesome.
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 07:08:38 PM
So what you're saying is that if I was to get a small business loan and I later donated some of my profit to PP and earmarked it for abortions, the government would be funding abortion? Awesome.
No, and I know you are not that stupid. When you fund one side of an organizations business you free capital to be spent on the other side.
If you own a donut shop, and the government gives you money to subsidize your sausage roll batter, you no longer have to use the profits from the sale of your donut holes to pay for coating your sausage rolls. Your donut hole production has just become more profitable, and you can now offer your holes at a lower cost.
Wow!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 07:39:56 AM
No, and I know you are not that stupid. When you fund one side of an organizations business you free capital to be spent on the other side.
If you own a donut shop, and the government gives you money to subsidize your sausage roll batter, you no longer have to use the profits from the sale of your donut holes to pay for coating your sausage rolls. Your donut hole production has just become more profitable, and you can now offer your holes at a lower cost.
Wow!
Or you can talk about what actually happens: PP offers a certain level of services, including abortion, at a given price. Government gives PP money (through the states, by the way), PP offers more family planning services and lowers the price, leaving abortion services the same.
Most of the abortions are reported to be provided to the poor and minorities. Why are there not cries about genocide?
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 08:05:46 AM
Or you can talk about what actually happens: PP offers a certain level of services, including abortion, at a given price. Government gives PP money (through the states, by the way), PP offers more family planning services and lowers the price, leaving abortion services the same.
LOL! Without the funding, what would happen?
Allow me. . .
Without funding for counseling, PP would be required to shift profits made from terminations to cover subsidized programs. This money would come out of the funding they use to pay professional abortionists.
A. They could raise the price of terminations to cover the counseling practice.
B. They could discontinue counseling all together, drop "planned" and "parenthood" from their name and operate under their primary profit center.
I think they would probably choose A because I believe they genuinely believe in the services they provide. As their name implies, they are focused on planning and parenthood.
Currently they report a total income of over $400 million dollars, with about 350 million coming from government grants and contracts. 15% to 16% of this money goes back to lobby the government for even more money. As a non-profit they operate termination services in most of their clinics at a significant discount over such medical services available from private physicians and hospitals. Without government funding they would cease to operate.
If your analogy was true, PP could operate termination clinics completely independent of government funding. If this was the case, competitive independent physicians would seize this opportunity to provide such services, and you would find competitively priced abortion services everywhere. We don't see this, therefore, we can conclude that without government funding it is not possible to provide termination services at such price levels. They currently offer terminations for $350.00 - $450.00 and most clinics even have a "Cost Calculator" on their website. In a hospital, this wouldn't pay for the anesthesia.
The reason it's hard to find abortion services has nothing to do with the market and everything to do with fools threatening doctors and women and vandalizing clinics. It's inexpensive to terminate because surgery is rarely required these days. Or have you not heard of RU-486 and other abortofacients? Besides, that's about what the private doctor in Fayetteville charges (unless he retired).
Anyway, if you have an issue with PP, take it up with the states who distribute the block grants in whatever way they see fit.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 08:59:06 AM
The reason it's hard to find abortion services has nothing to do with the market and everything to do with fools threatening doctors and women and vandalizing clinics. It's inexpensive to terminate because surgery is rarely required these days. Or have you not heard of RU-486 and other abortofacients? Besides, that's about what the private doctor in Fayetteville charges (unless he retired).
Anyway, if you have an issue with PP, take it up with the states who distribute the block grants in whatever way they see fit.
Again, I don't have an issue. I'm just saying that you are incorrect in your statement that funding for PP does not impact termination services. It does.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 09:09:57 AM
Again, I don't have an issue. I'm just saying that you are incorrect in your statement that funding for PP does not impact termination services. It does.
If that was actually the case, I suspect there would have been a lawsuit filed and successfully prosecuted on the subject.