Letter to USA Today and Gallup published at Examiner.com 3.31.2011

Dear Madam or Sir,

I take issue with the way Dennis Cauchon (and others in the media) have reported upon public opinion in Wisconsin, and summarized results.  Consider your USA Today/Gallup poll asking, “Would you favor or oppose a law in your state taking away some collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers union?” 

Apparently, 61% of your respondents answered “oppose” and so Mr. Cauchon’s February 23rd piece blared, “Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights”

Not so fast.  In the first place, “right” is an emotionally-laden word and also an inaccurate one when used to reference collective bargaining, since no such right is enumerated in either the U.S. Constitution or Wisconsin’s Constitution (or any other state constitution that I have yet to discover) . 

A more accurate and reasonably framed question would have been, “Would you favor or oppose a law in your state that substituted some collective bargaining privileges, including those of the state teachers union, with local bargaining at the district level?”

Your poll also indicated that 71% of us do not favor any tax increases as a means to reduce state deficits.  Another problem with the USA/Gallup poll and those who like to seize only on the flawed question mentioned above, is that they fail to ask respondents to choose between tax increases or spending cuts.  Assuming that Wisconsinites want present government employee staffing levels, it is an either or proposition. 

Our governor and Republican lawmakers have taken commendable steps to help taxpayers permanently reign in outlandish benefits costs.  They have chosen and they were chosen - at the polls which mattered – last November’s elections.

Regards,

John J. Maddente

By examiner.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50668796

Setting it straight on 'rights' (published 3/15/2011)

Image by Freepik

By Tim Peterson, Robert J. Simandl And John J. Maddente 
Published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 3.15.2011

Right, noun: A just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive or moral.

That's the definition of a word used by Wisconsin's public-sector unions demanding to retain all collective bargaining privileges.

For weeks, we've heard demonstrators beating drums in Madison alongside equally vocal sympathizers in the media talking about "rights" of public-sector union employees and "attacks" on "the middle class." We respectfully disagree with them.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, collective bargaining is "A process of negotiation between representatives of workers (usually labor union officials) and management to determine the conditions of employment. The agreement reached may cover not only wages but hiring practices, layoffs, promotions, working conditions, hours and benefit programs."

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, in Constitutional Law, says rights are classified as natural, civil and political. Natural rights are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being such as rights to life, liberty, privacy and pursuit of happiness. Civil rights belong to every citizen and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury and the like.

Political rights entail power to participate in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote and the right to hold public office.

Therefore since collective bargaining is neither a natural, civil nor political right, at best, it is a "right" only in the colloquial sense of the term and merely a privilege in a purely constitutional sense.

Further, nothing in Wisconsin's Declaration of Rights (found in the state constitution) guarantees a right to collective bargaining for any citizen.

While the bill has caused controversy, it enables distributed bargaining and pushes down negotiations to local levels - where, in our view, they belonged in the first place. We are bothered by the oft-used phrase of an "assault on the middle class" pertaining to public-sector union employees who possess Cadillac health care benefits and retirement plans the rest of us only dream of. And, as 15% of the workforce, public-sector unions hardly constitute the sweeping characterization of "Wisconsin's middle class."

The fact is, at the local level in many rural Wisconsin communities, public employment has become a fiefdom of privilege where, owing to binding interest arbitration based upon comparability, the never-ending spiral of wage and benefit improvements often results in local government compensation exceeding community "middle class" standards. The need to bargain virtually every operational issue makes implementing policy decisions and providing services a protracted struggle, often ending in arbitration.

Perhaps this is why President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the patron saint of the American labor movement warned: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations . . . The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for . . . officials . . . to bind the employer . . . The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives."

We believe that by limiting collective bargaining, the Legislature bolstered workers' ability to associate and negotiate with whom they choose, while reining in runaway costs.

Finally, we note that a few commentators believe a $3.7 billion structural deficit does not mean our state is broke. They know Wisconsin can borrow, raise taxes and user fees, engage in accounting gimmickry (e.g. raiding "segregated" funds to close budget gaps), or some combination thereof. That's what we have been doing for decades - until now.

Change is never easy, but reform has come from duly-elected officials. We applaud our governor and the Republicans for their leadership in standing for fiscal restraint, and we remind taxpayers that this all boils down to numbers. Too much deficit requires sustainable limits on public-employee benefits - just like in real life, where businesses and taxpayers dwell.

Tim Peterson is a local businessman and former Libertarian Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. Robert Simandl is a Wisconsin attorney practicing employee benefit, labor and employment law. John Maddente is a Republican, blogger and local businessman.
 ___________________________________________________________________________________

What I saw on Feb. 11 in Madison, Wisconsin

John Maddente photo

It was a clear day at the Capitol.

What wasn't reported quite as clearly, among other things, was the composition of the Pro-Walker forces, which were outnumbered I'm guessing, by about 20 to 1 -- thanks in part to throngs of out-of-state demonstrators.  One problem with the media characterization, was that they consistently reported the Pro-Walker group only as a "Tea Party" rally.  

Obviously, Tea Party members were out in force but the group contained a broader cross-section of voters including mainstream GOP members and even a few Blue Dog Dems including one courageous soul holding a sign labeled, "I'm A Teacher For Walker"  I believe that man has more company than most people realize, particularly among private school teachers that are non-unionized and paid less in wages and benefits than their public school counterparts.  

Back to the afternoon event.  It was non-violent, but press accounts labeling it as "peaceful" stretch the adjective.  The government union faithful were deployed in a circle, perhaps a dozen members wide, that encircled the entire capitol building so that Pro-Walker supporters had to walk through them, and their insults, in order to get to the muddy basin of the capitol steps where Walker supporters gathered.  Three times protesters tried to engage me in dialogue which I ignored to avoid a fruitless, heated debate -- or worse.  Remember, I said nothing before or afterward to these people.  That sort of provocation occurred repeatedly -- but you probably didn't read about it.  

Another unreported, or at least under-reported development, occurred near the lectern of the pro-Walker gathering.  Suddenly, the speaker's booming voice went silent.  Turning to a friend, I said, "That was no accident."  Seconds later, an opposition mole was ushered away by Sheriffs and the sound system began to work after someone plugged it in again. Yes, just like Forrest Gump, but here the antagonists were liberals.

Union members marching around the capitol circle chanted, beat drums and hoisted signs -- most of which contained civil inscriptions -- but others with words or images of Governor Walker that are unrepeatable on this site.  Again, I saw no press coverage of these signs, though they were hard to miss.  I hoped that the owners of those particular signs are not teaching children.  I'm not sure they should be near children.  

To be fair, I saw a couple objectionable signs in the pro-Walker camp but they were less numerous than vile ones paraded by the other side. 

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, columnist John Fund distills all this clamor into one question.  Mr. Fund asks, "Who's in charge of our political system -- voters or government unions?"  For decades, of course, the answer in the Badger State has been government unions.  That's about to end.  The objective is not to bust them, it's about requiring them to pay a reasonable share of their lucrative benefit packages and allocating more control to voters.

John Maddente photo

Fortunately, legislators do not need the fourteen absent Dems to vote on the collective bargaining provision of the bill. 

Collective bargaining is a mechanism many want scaled back because such "bargaining" over the decades is what led to the out sized, budget-busting wage and benefit packages for many government employees. Pushing decisions down to the local levels makes sense.  Instead of allowing the Left to spin this as destruction of "rights" -- it's more accurate and less emotional -- to characterize the legislation as a move toward distributed bargaining.  

Claiming that collective bargaining is some divine "right" doesn't make it so.  If you're a public teacher and you disagree, try looking at the issue in the following terms.  Most of us cannot "bargain" for higher pay or benefits.  Instead we receive a market-based pay package and a defined benefit plan, not a guarantee of retirement income and virtually free health care plans.  If we feel that our benefits or pay packages are unacceptable -- we find work elsewhere.  We do not have, nor do we seek, any collective means to hold employers (or taxpayers) hostage. 

Another notion advanced by some on the Left, is that this legislation is a surprise hijacking that nobody talked about before the election.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)  speaking this morning on Meet The Press explained how measures in the bill causing such a stir, are a well documented facet of candidate Walker's campaign before he took office.  Informed voters knew as much when they elected him.  Arguably, it is a one reason that they did elect him.  

What is unprecedented, of course, are the fourteen fugitive Democrat state senators.  It's a disgraceful signal to young people or anyone considering a career in public service.  When things get tough, flee the state -- just take your ball and leave.  That way, no one can play.  

I hope that this stalemate doesn't turn violent.  We can all disagree without throwing punches, but what I saw yesterday worried me. 

 

(Image above taken in Madison, WI 2/19/2011.  John Maddente photo)

A writer's words to live by

The following passage was shared with me recently.  It was written by a German writer, Rainer Maria Rilke.  Mr. Rilke died in 1926 at the age of 51. This piece is taken from his "Letters To A Young Poet".  I find these words timeless, profound and moving.   Please consider sharing them with someone.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart

and try to love the questions themselves.

Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be 

given you because you would not be able to live them. 

And the point is to live everything.

Live the questions now. 

Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers.

Image by freepik

AEI scholars' research: taxes vs. spending cuts

OMB Chart

Excerpts published at Examiner.com

An editorial grabbed my attention recently.  Titled, "The Right Way to Balance the Budget" the piece was published on page A13 of the Wall Street Journal on December 29th. 

Three scholars from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) collaborated on the aforementioned article.  They examined the likelihood of success coming from three choices we have to address our deficits and the national debt.

The choices of course are: tax increases, spending cuts, or a combination of both.

AEI website: Andrew Biggs

AEI website: Kevin Hassett

Two PhD economists, Andrew Biggs (London School of Economics) and Kevin Hassett (University of Pennsylvania) and economic research analyst Matt Jensen, argue their case by building on the prior work of two Harvard economists: Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna.

Messrs. Biggs, Hassett and Jensen conclude the primary way to fix our fiscal predicament is singular in nature -- cut government spending.  Period.  (Although they'd hasten to add that the type of spending cuts implemented does matter).  According to their thesis, the notion of raising taxes, or even using a combination of tax raises and spending cuts -- will not work. 

The case for cutting federal (and state) government spending has been simple -- increasing revenues for the government without statutory spending restraints, will only result in continued spending because historically, government reverts to its spendthrift ways when it is not legally shackled to do otherwise.

Remember, we had a balanced federal budget as recently as 1998 and ran surpluses for a few years but Congress and the Executive branch of government failed to continue a fiscally responsible path, so here we are in 2010 facing a 14 Trillion dollar monster.

No wonder many Americans believe that neither Congress, or any President can be trusted to remain fiscally responsible.  So, what about the experience of other industrialized, debt-laden countries?  Here's the verdict from the AEI authors who analyzed the history of debt consolidations attempted in 21 nations over the course of 37 years...

The authors assert, "...the typical unsuccessful consolidation relied on 53% tax increases and 47% spending cuts."  

Some observers predict that this is precisely the sort of compromise (i.e. arriving at a closely weighted mix of tax increases and spending cuts) which will be hatched by pols in Washington trying to tackle our own debt problem (or appear as though they are).

Biggs-Hassett-Jensen conclude that nations achieve fiscal balance only after applying austerity measures which include a minimum 85% reduction in spending cuts.  In other words, no more than 15% of the total solution, comes from tax increases.  They also hold that nations achieve these cuts primarily by responsible reduction of social transfer payments.

Surprised?  We have to significantly reduce spending now to avoid much more devastating pain later, because nations don't tax their way to solvency.

Public Notice - the bankrupting of America

Public Notice is "an independent non-profit dedicated to providing facts and insight on the economy and how government policy affects Americans’ financial well-being."  

Here's a slide from them (with holiday flair) called "The 12 Days of Government Spending"

A post-election reply to Mortimer and Stanley

Wikipedia

Here are excerpts from a reply to two friends - disguised with fake names - Mortimer and Stanley.   

These guys fall at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but their exchanges are always respectful.  The three of us have been "sparring" since our teens. 

Some text changed, but it is close to the original version when I responded to their post-election e-mail dual of 11/3/2010...

"Dear Mortimer and Stanley,

I love your passionate sentiments about today's political landscape and all that ails us.  I agree with both of you - to an extent. Ah, the advantage of going last...

I'll start with Stanley and his Mortimer rebuke - "Greed and avarice are as old as the Bible, Morty. And the Democrats are experts on that."  

Stanley, I assume you mean Dems are experts on greed, not the Bible.  Some Republicans also know greed, as do some Libertarians.  What's missing in your criticism, is the role of of the players who make policies, appropriations, budgets and tax incentives that perpetuate our fiscal hell. 

Take, the housing bubble, which was enabled by government policies (sorry Morty, mainly Dems and the Fed in my view) when millions of Americans "bought" houses that they could not afford.  That experience is the perfect example of why we are broke as a nation and as a people. We ate too much, drank too much, bought too much, saved too little and then the bill came due. 

Yes, we have a consumer-based economy Morty and it's a giant Petri dish of self indulgence.  An economy so dependent upon domestic consumption strikes me as doomed as ancient Rome.

Our sense of liberty gave way to gluttony and we confuse the two nouns. 

These election outcomes?  Yes the people have spoken Stanley, but will a new majority in power practice sound fiscal principles by telling voters what many of them don't want to hear?  Will tax cuts be matched by corresponding spending cuts?  We'll see what the new Congress tries in January, but I don't believe we can tax our way out of the hole, or depend upon government to be a good steward of the peoples'' wealth.  Nor can the Fed save us by printing cash.  What's the pain remedy?  First we must take some pain.  

Live within our means, keep the dollar strong and responsibly scale back entitlement programs.  Social Security, Medicare, a bevy of state and other federal programs, public sector defined benefit retirement plans, as well as Cadillac health plans are all part of the same problem.  Some austerity measures can kick in now, not in 2025.

As for Mortimer's remorse regarding Mr. Feingold's election  fate, I was pleased but not surprised.  My view on how Russ Feingold devolved as a public servant would take time, but here's a taste...

You called him a Maverick, Morty.  Sometimes yes, but not always when it mattered.  His lonevote against the Patriot Act was pointless grandstanding.  He acted as though he had a monopoly on wisdom and constitutional purity that somehow eluded 98% of the United States Senate (one senator didn't vote on the measure).

Libertarians later rebelled against this Maverick after he voted for his party's stimulus package and Obamacare.  All this and years of inactive legislative performance sunk his boat, Morty.  He fell in love with being a Senator and made an ill-timed dart to the entitlement-loving, Left.  It was too late for him to retreat to the Center. 

I'm done for now, but know this men -- I can still drive to the hoop better than either one of you ever could, although I concede you were both better students. 

Your devoted friend,

John