Where the democratic party went wrong in 2009 and why Obama could still pay the price for their lack of vision in 2012.

    By jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 7:11am |

    I like the president.  Even after two years of being pushed around by a democratic party long broken by special interests of all stripes and a republican party whose right flank has chewed away what little logic remained after eight years of Bush enriching the richest among us. 

    I think it was actually something of miracle that anything positive has come out of Washington DC these last two years given the people we have in charge right now.  The democratic party wasted Obama's limited mandate passing a stimulus package many sensible people in the country found excessive followed by a Frankenstein health care plan more than half the country hates, left and right.

    I disagree with the various sins laid at Obama's feet by many on the right side of our national equation and am voting for him in the 2012 primaries given the complete lack of an alternative; however, if the left truly believes this country is any less polarized than it was in 2008, they weren't paying attention in 2010 and will be very surprised in 2012 no matter how well Obama does at the polls.

    It's not just Tea Partiers out there on the right.  There are sensible, logical people among independents and the center-right who will ditch the president in heartbeat given a reasonable choice on the right.  They feel disenfranchised by a democratic party who used their slim majority to increase federal spending by double digits where it had remained single digit increase for years.

    The health care debate was a ridiculous waste of time and energy given the final outcome.  By letting Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, who I "like" in the same way I "like" Ron Paul, start with Medicare-for-All (a horrible bill that never made it out of committee) virtually guaranteed a polarized discussion that would not produce results equal to our needs and would be hated by a large majority of voters.

    I still believe there is a way for political moderates of all stripes to bind up our hyperpartisan wounds and work to advance a sustainable agenda for America.  We began that conversation in 2008 in lines stretching around the block in every state in the union, as democrats and republicans and independents showed their support for an aspirational politician with some all-too-human failings once elected.

    Where the electorate has failed, left and right, is much more significant as we remain as divided and as vulnerable as we have ever been in our history.  When political moderates (meaning those who can discuss things rationally and logically despite any disagreements on specific policies) let the fringes dictate the conversation we get stagnation and polarization without end. 

    We missed our chance in 2010 primaries.  Will we stay home once again in 2012?

    Comments

    Hi Jason, nice to see you here. 

    So, okay, he should 'do something reasonable and moderate'. That's a new and unusual suggestion coming from you!! Laughing

    Let me ask my usual question: What substantive policy moves do you see as falling under that description at this point. Going with something like the Simpson-Bowles recommendations? I can't think of much else in the "moderate" area that would be big enough to move votes...

    Another question: who do you see as reasonable and moderate in the GOP field, and has a decent shot at getting the nomination? Huntsman? Romney? Isn't their Mormonism going to be unacceptable to the religious right, and so lead to an "anything but the Mormons" movement in the primaries? I don't have a good feel for what the GOP primary dynamics are going to be like this time around. Thanks.

     


    by Obey on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:21am

    Ditto, Obey.  I caught up with Still Idealistic recently and she suggested I pop over here to add a different voice to the mix.  All the smart TPMers are here already, so I figured I would join them. :O)

    I actually think Obama has been mostly reasonable and moderate so far, however unreasonable and immoderate his party was, both in DC and at the grassroots.  I blame the right equally for this increased partisan fervor as well.  Blame enough to go around for all given what the silent majority turned out to say in November 2008.

    I would love to see a plan that acknowledged the trends in a meaningful way.  I would be willing to see a slight increase in taxes if coupled with spending cuts and a commitment to pay down our national debt.  A long-term plan to solve some long-term systemic problems would be nice given the current state of education and poverty and sickness. 

    I still have yet to hear anyone speak realistically about health care reform that includes diet and exercise and policies that adversely impact both.

    As to your final question with regards to the GOP, I am not sure either.  I am not inclined to listen to their partisan bleating.  They missed the opportunity to seal the deal with me back when Obama inspired me to move from hard-left to center-right and the GOP went off the rails.  Rather than using Obama's inherent pragmatism to fix things, they went the opposite direction.

    I find both parties to be our biggest impediment to sustainable progress that the frustratingly silent majority would support and defend.


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:57am

    All the smart TPMers are here already

    Except for gotalife.

    Welcome, jason. Nice to see you.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 12:33pm

    Diito, Genghis.  I remember gotalife as always fun to debate with, however frustrating those conversations were at times. 


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 2:09pm

    I actually saw him on a CNN.com thread. He complimented by shirt.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 2:46pm

    How about immigration?  That's a great issue to make everyone--or at least all the most vocal folks--really, really unhappy.  What is your view--the reasonable, moderate one, presumably--on that issue? 

    Do you think the financial reform legislation last year was loony left, not enough, or about right?  How would you characterize that?  Do you feel confident that our financial system's vulnerabilities have been adequately addressed?

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 1:03pm

    Immigration is certainly a hot-button issue and one neither party seems willing to address.  I am not sure we are tight enough as a people to adequately address that problem. 

    I think there are actually three groups of people being hurt by our current policies - illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and those people who are currently citizens who might need those jobs.  No easy answer for any of the three and all have competing interests no matter what we do.

    I think the financial reform was wholly inadequate and the vulnerabilities to speculative endeavors are certainly still there.  As with immigration, there is no easy answer as long as we remain divided along such strict ideological boundaries.


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 2:07pm

    One party has said NO, NO NO  and the other keeps insisting to keep pushing till we say YES.

    Even one Party assuring to a great extent. IGNORING THE LAW  

    The Democrats that keep pushing the agenda of Open Borders crowd, deliberately ENFEEBLING the LAW, obstructing it’s enforcement,  until they can achieve their goals, over the will of the People and the Laws they have legislated.

    All obstructions to the execution of the laws,

    BUILD THE FENCE or better yet arrest those caught ILLEGALLY in America

    all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.

    FLOOD THE COUNTRY WITH MILLIONS  in order to awe, to control and counteract the working class American citizens.

    Here's how it works for the Open Borders crowd, when they say "We cant round up this many illegals, so they must be given Amnesty"

    The American people will not be AWED  You Illegals found your way here, Im sure you can find your way back.   

    They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests  

    Washington's Farewell Address 1796
    Why can't the 20 million ILLEGALS in America, build their own towns and cities, just across the border?
    The illegals have surely sent enough remittances back home. They can surely turn the State of Sonora, Baja California ,North and South into THEIR OWN PARADISE.
    Raising their own crops, building their own hotels and housing to care for their families. Building their own infrastucture to meet the needs of their people.  
    Or is that to much work, it's easier to live off of a host?

    by Resistance on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 2:58pm

    What side of the political spectrum would you claim if you had to choose?


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:39pm

    What does that matter?  


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:36am

    Just curious.  This rant could have come from someone on the far right, so I found it ironic coming from someone who may consider themselves "liberal" in some fashion.


    by jasonmillerdc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:29am

    It’s not a rant it’s a plea…… wake up stupid Americans

    We fought a Civil war in this country to end the deplorable act of slavery.

    The South said it would ruin them financially.  We as a people said you will not profit at the expense of human chattel.

    So as not to be outdone and to return to financial profitability, the New Slave traders, have sanitized the term slavery; it is now called Globalization.

    Corporations do not want to hear about American workers rights, corporations do not want to have to be put in a position to bargain with American Workers.

    So in order to screw the American worker, the Corporations want replacement workers.

    Enter ILLEGAL Aliens.

    But seeing that illegal aliens, is not exactly an endearing term;  with one stoke of the pen , the Corporations and their tools and dupes  can give all these replacement workers, amnesty.

    With more newly acquired workers to meet the demands of CORPORATIONS,

    You tell me what demands the WORKERS can make? When you have more workers than jobs?

    Do you want the leverage and power in the Hands of Corporations, or the American worker?

    Amnesty cuts our throats.

    Sure, the new slave class is glad to work for these Corporations,  probably bowing down to their new task masters.  Are you ready to bow down yet?

    Slavery profitable again

     Only the new slave class, buys their own shoes, clothing, food, medical and the days of having to house slaves gone but; with so many houses now on the market that problem has been somewhat alleviated.  

    More houses than buyers and the prices go down. More workers than jobs and the wages and demands go down. THAT SIMPLE.

     All the negatives of slavery sanitized  

    Corporations saying mockingly  “WE cant hear youuuuuu, American Union worker;  but who cares;  we don’t need you anyways”  

    Corporations saying "If you dont meet our demands we'll move overseas, if you dont give us tax breaks we're moving"

    Why are we talking about Amnesty Mr President? Where are the jobs Mr. President?

    Mr. President you do realize, more workers and no jobs, ruins the American middle class don't you?

    Should I continue to be a Democrat, if you intend to cut the workingmans throat?

    What was the Democratic position when the Nation went to war over slavery?

    Werent they the Free traders? Is the New Democratic party in favor of bringing back Free trading again?  Slavery with a bit of humanity thrown in, but just a little in order to keep the slaves happy.   


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:07pm

    You so misconstrue not only your terms but your perceptions of undocumented immigrants and their families and why it is wiser and more humane to allow pathways to citizenship is always astounding, Resistance.  You refuse to believe how many immigrants are in this country illegally, but have been for decades, and pay taxes like everyone else, have had babies on American soil who are thus 'Americans', who should not have their parents summarily sent back to some other country (though we know exactly which country to which you refer). 

    And there are simply no Open Borders proponents of whonm I've ever heard in serious discussions about immigration reform.  And again, you propose that jobs are zero sum, which anyone can tell you is wrong; but it's not even worth correcting all the crap in your xenophobic rants.  So keep your love for Joe Arpaio and his buddies if you like; most of us will just try to pretend you haven't said all this JUNK, and hope you get a clue about what Jesus would really do about any of this.  And no, once again, I don't buy your schtick that he would be against criminality or whatever rant you project.

    You do get one or two things right, but they are hardly worth pointing out in the grand scheme of things, IMO.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:53pm

    You don’t know my nationality. When you call me xenophobic, that makes you a LIAR, a SLANDERER.

    Quit speaking for those who are law abiding citizens; you promoter of lawlessness.

    Dont presume your protecting Mexicans

    http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/05/18/you-dont-speak-for-me-legal-mexican-immigrants-outraged-over-amnesty-for-illegals-standing-up-against-illegal-immigration-video/

    You don’t like the message so you attack the messenger. You don’t like the law and you attack law abiding citizens.

    You'll defend lawlessness and I defend lawful.

    IMHO the World already has enough lawlessness.

    As Jesus would say "get awy from me, you worker/s of lawlessness"


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:25pm

    Yes, yes, yes.  Enjoy your life, Resistance; you seem to self identify as American.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:40pm

    Born one, and glad to be one, It has it's advantages.

    Great place to emmigrate to............ LEGALLY  

    Thanks for the enjoy life, but I'm sure you're aware; that won't occur till lawlessness ceases.


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:08am

    "And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you."


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:08am

    I could find the scripture, or I could pray, Jesus himself would come to your home, but more likely he'd send one of angels; his servants

    But would you reject what they had to say?.

    You'll agree with his teachings as long as they agree with your opinion? .

    Repentance first;  then forgiveness.

    We know this, because it says that the man that is lawless, should be thrown out of the congregation;  for fear; a little leaven shall spoil the whole.  

    There is nothing preventing you and your fellow believers from Taxing yourselves;  to give to those in need.

    The rest of the Nation doesnt have to be forced, to give to your favorite charity.


    by Resistance on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:52am

    God's laws, not human laws, I'd imagine those quotes reference.  Quite a difference.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:11am

    I think the financial reform was wholly inadequate and the vulnerabilities to speculative endeavors are certainly still there. 

    I agree.  Those who pushed for stronger, more adequate measures, using conventional meanings of our political labels, were considered to be on the "left" on this issue, though.  How does that square with your view that the problem in this country is that those on the left and the right dominate debate, when what happened on financial reform is that those considered to be on the left--who you and I and many here wanted to have more influence--turned out not to have enough clout to get adequate measures taken, at least on this round?  On this issue, the "problem" was that the left part of the advocacy spectrum wasn't strong enough to prevail--not that extremists on the left and the right, believing on your account presumably equally kooky things, thwarted effective sensible=moderate action.


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:50pm

    What I said was "status quo" groups are the ones who dominate the elections because they are the only ones who vote in primaries, that tends to gather at the fringes of both parties.  Policy-wise, we have been pretty much all corporate-welfare with a little Fed mischief thrown in every ten years or so for good measure.  This has been status quo under both parties. 

    Neither "fringe" really gets its own way, despite the lies they choose to believe (or choose to tell themselves in the case of Obama and the far left) during the primaries. 

    I know plenty of people smack in the center of both parties who would support a robust regulatory environment on all kinds of things central to our health and welfare as a nation.  They would just do it differently from the left, which is where creative policy discussions must come into play, so both "sides" of the middle can convince their respective fringes to support the effort.

    We are too divided as a nation to ever fix the various and sundry "evils" that beset us in a strategic and sustainable fashion.  Manifest Destiny where are thee?


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:07pm

    I know plenty of people smack in the center of both parties who would support a robust regulatory environment on all kinds of things central to our health and welfare as a nation. 

    On financial reform, who, and where, were these "plenty of people smack in the center of both parties who would support a robust regulatory environment" in the Republican party while financial reform was being discussed in Congress last year and the year before?  What I heard was a deafening silence from the GOP on this and what I observed was resolute, lockstep determination to kill off regulatory reform proposals opposed by the big finance lobby.  The same was true of many Democrats.  Most members of Congress who were willing to consider robust regulatory steps outside the parameters of what was approved by the big finance lobby were Democrats. 

    What I don't observe is a shred of evidence for the claim that there exists a vital center, either looking at Congress as a whole or looking at each political party separately, on financial reform that could give us what we need on this issue.  If you can identify a Republican House or Senate member who publicly proposed robust financial reforms during that debate, I am glad to be shown I am wrong about this.     

    Do you agree or disagree with Senator Richard Durbin's assessment in April 2009: "the banks--hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created--are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill.  And they frankly own the place."  Would you characterize Durbin as an intransigent extreme leftist?

    They would just do it differently from the left...

    Just so I understand what you are saying, when you identify "left" views on financial reform, who are you referring to?  Where do you place folks such as Stiglitz, Simon Johnson and James Kwak, Krugman, and Roubini--obviously not all of whom agree with one another on what should be done--on financial reform?  If you don't consider them "left" on this issue, who do you consider "left" on this issue that was offering concrete policy proposals when Congress was considering financial reform last year and the year before? 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:33pm

    All I can do is offer anecdotal evidence of "normal" conservatives in my own life who have some fairly "liberal" tendancies as well as a very "liberal" wife who is nonetheless right-leaning on a couple of issues.  We are a purple nation who hasn't found a way to actually be represented in Congress because none of us vote in primary elections.

    You brought up the left as having not gotten its way, so therefore the "fringe" has no representation on the left.  That wasn't my contribution to the discussion.  I think most reasonable and logical people in the "center" agree that Wall Street and certain corporations shouldn't be allowed to rob us blind. 

    Is that left or right or middle?


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:44pm

    If one's goal is for the political moderates to bring more moderate focused politics back to DC - then the political moderates, and that increasingly frustrated "silent majority," need to stop being so silent during the primary season, both in the activism arena and the voting booth.  As we all know,  the parties' base, which is more politicized and partisan that the average person, dictate who gets to advance to the general election, and therefore drives much of the insanity in between elections.  How we get a more engaged citizenery is the million dollar question. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:07am

    That is indeed the million dollar question.  I suggested back in 2008 that we rename the "General Election" and instead call it the Secondary Election.  Perhaps that would give Primary Elections the position they deserve with regards to the impact of those votes.  We have been convinced that civic participation is not cool or just political junkies, when in fact we should all be political junkies given the centrality of those decisions on our lives.  An average turnout of 20% virtually guarantees a Hobson's Choice come November.


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 2:14pm

    The 20% are still hanging on to the illusive Phantom of Hope.

    The other 80% are wondering why we ever fought King George.

    Replacing one corrupt government with another. 

    Tea anyone.


    by Resistance on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:25pm

    The public got to see the results of electing wingnuts on legislation dealing with unions, unemployment insurance, women's rights, govrnment subsidies to big oil ,etc. If independents again go for a "reasonable" Republican (read wingnut in sheep's clothing), then the country will suffer. There is no one in the GOP hierarchy that one could say is willing to negotiate. Since these rigid politicians are elected by Republicans, we have to conclude that these are the folks that Republicans want.

    When Gingrich got honest about the Ryan plan, the GOP went bonkers. We did not see hordes of "rational" Republicans supporting Newt. The conclusion is "rational" Republicans no longer exist. The public goes along with what exists and then feigns shock when wingnuts act like wingnuts.

    There is no pressure being exerted for more Progressive candidates. Alan Grayson is gone. Russ Feingold is gone. There is no third party option for 2012. The public gets the government it deserves by not advocating for a different style of politician. The public loves an empty suit like a Palin or a Trump because they are entertaining and confrontational. Only after repeated demonstrations of incompetence do the Trumps and Palins get cast aside.

    Harry Reid, who has to be one of the worse public speakers placed in high office is the Democratic leader in the Senate. If his appearances on The Daily Show and other outlets are any indication of his negotiating skills, then it is no wonder that Democratic outliers like Landrieu cannot be forced into line. The true and sad fact was that Harry Reid was the best Senate candidate offered by the major parties for the Senate from Nevada.

    We live in a world where you do have to make a choice about voting for the lesser of two evils. I see no short term solution to the problem. In 2012 the choice will be vote for the Democrat, vote for the wingnut, or stay home.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:38am

    The problem is that the voters exerting pressure in the primaries are the status quo voters, which leaves us a "lesser-of-two-evils" choice come November. 

    It is an unfortunate fact that the "silent majority" who determine a politician's fate in the fall tend to vote strictly down party lines with very little attention paid to the details of those votes. The following year, as things begin to invariably go wrong for all of us, the low information voter is free to blame the other party exclusively as they always have and always will until death do us part.

    I just spent the weekend with my future brother-in-law, a typical middle-of-the-road republican who supported Obama in 2008 and is ready to flee in 2012 because of the dem faithful and their representatives in Congress.  Last we spoke, I was a far left radical who was ready to burn it all down for perceived insults and divisions that really didn't exist. 

    Now I am a center right independent who understands the republican mindset, can see they have many fine points, even if I don't always agree with their preferred solutions.  I think the true progressive designs a system both sides can support and defend, which explains the diverse nature of those who claim the appellation throughout our history.

    Your list of standard "left" issues is a perfect illustration why.  Unions represent 10% of American workers and 36% of union members belong to government employee unions.  They are due a debt of gratitude for many past sacrifices made on behalf of all workers, but that doesn't extend to the special interest pressure they put on the cost of government services at all levels today. 

    Most "rational" republicans (male & female, of course) think women are going pretty well in this country, especially compared to some really horrific places around the world, notwithstanding the remaining inequities in the system.  There is a middle ground to be had from a policy perspective, but neither side discusses "women's rights" with anything approaching context or reason.

    The "public" gets what the fringes dictate in the primary elections because they are the only ones who vote.  That has been our system of elections for decades.  Given a choice, I would prefer everyone vote in the primary election and then let the fringes battle it out in November over two basically sound choices put through the primaries by the silent majority.


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 2:38pm

    Unions actually have conceded a great deal in recent years, just ask the auto workers.I think that while some may be concerned about the "power" of the unions, they do not agree with how Republican governors are trying to run roughshod over unions. Democrats can win the union label argument.

    From comments that I'm seeing from many female activists, there is an all out assault on reproductive rights. If the standard is going to be countries that perform female circumcision and stoning, then yes women are doing well in the US. I think that reublicans are on the wrong side of the issue including reproductive issues like stem cell research. Democrats can win this argument as well.

    Finally, than you for saying that I'm representing "left" issues. I'm often made to feel like a "centrist" here at dagblog.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:39pm

    I don't know that I said you represent the left.  I try not to comment one way or the other on that unless someone else introduces it first.  I am left on some issues.  I am right on some issues. 

    I think Unions dropped the ball a long time ago when they stopped representing mostly blue collar private workers and instead started representing mostly white collar, public professionals.  A union for janitors and maids and Walmart Employees?  All for it.  A union for Fairfax County's Director of IT?  No fricking way. 

    There are unintended consequences to the change in union membership that many on the "left" seem unwilling to discuss.


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:48pm

    I think teachers, policemen and firemen have as much right to form a union as the janitors. Contract agreements with unions have to be approved by elected officials.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:59pm

    Policemen and Firemen make sense, but I continue to argue that teachers are far worse off as a profession because of union intransigence to common sense reforms.  Not all unions are created equal.


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:13pm

    I think teachers need protection from school boards.


    by Donal on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:46pm

    I think students need protection from school boards more than teachers.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:48am

    But one of the ways school boards affect students is by hiring and letting go teachers. I'm sure board members want good teachers, but they also want to control costs (and some of them are all too happy to assign jobs based on patronage). Right now a school board is trying to buy out my ex because they can get two young teachers for her salary. She is a very good teacher. I wouldn't be too thrilled if my bosses hired two twenty-five year olds to replace me, and fortunately they value my experience. But to a lot of school boards, an experienced teacher is still just a teacher, and can easily be replaced with one fresh out of school. I don't think that attitude serves students or teachers.


    by Donal on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:27am

    You'll get no argument from me that school boards and the way we fund education based on ZIP code are major issues as well.  We need multifaceted solutions to the problem.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:58am

    But the answer for replaceable employees vs employers has usually been unions. They aren't perfect, but there was a reason they appealed to workers.


    by Donal on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:01am

    I don't find teachers to be "replacable" employees, which is why I believe their profession would have been better served had it relied more on the teachers themselves rather than the unions. 

    I read a great op-ed in the NYT during the whole WI embroglio.  I believe there are certain professions, like teaching in public schools, where the unions do more damage than good. 

    College professors don't really have unions except for isolated faculty locals and they have a pretty nice life for the most part despite some increasing challenges they have been working to solve.

    I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  I am more in the "Teach a man to fish..." crowd and that includes professional development that leads to a stable career sans union.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:26am

    College professors with tenure have a nice life. Doc Cleveland has already written about the ones that don't. And tenure is the part of unions that always comes under attack. But unions and tenure developed in response to abuses by management. So unless those abuses are magically going away, removing unions is going to degrade those professions.


    by Donal on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:31am

    I think Unions will continue to fight the same battles over and over again without seeing any noticable improvements for their members.  Tenure is an illusion of security.  Unions remain a cudgle when a scalpel is required.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:56am

    Well define the scalpel before I put down the cudgel.


    by Donal on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:14am

    I think students need protection from school boards more than teachers.

    This Shelby, Mississippi story that I happened across yesterday sort of illustrates your opinion.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:07pm

    Once some government workers can unionize, it becomes hard to argue that all government workers should not have the option. Teachers come in for a great deal of criticism for probles that society as declined to address. It's hard to argue for getting an education when political leaders ridicule those with education as "elitist". We celebrate athletes and movie stars  not scientists.

    The mere fact that teachers are targeted is an indication of where we place education as a proirity. If reading is not being done in the home, teachers are already playing catch up. If discipline is not taught in the home, teachers have to divert time from teaching to obtain calm in the classroom. When corporate interests try to run schools on a business model, the results are generally not different than what the public shools were achieving.

    We do not make getting an education an important national goal. Teachers shold be able to have unions just like the firemen and policemen.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:49pm

    The country used to have a standard of wanting people to improve their income status. We now have corporations making profits and still squeezing workers for health insurance, etc. As I see that actions of Republican governors, in no way will I stand in the way of someone's attempt to unionize. As I said, I think unions have rsponded to marketplace issues.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:54pm

    Using teachers as a stand-in for the millions of unionized government workers is just as much of a political machination on the left as anything coming out of the right.  This isn't just about teachers and it never was.

    There are dozens of careers, all them non-union, that have improved their lot in recent decades.  That most unionized "professions" remain behind the powercurve should tell you something.  Again, I think unions have their place, just not the place they currently reside.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:51am

    Can you name these professions?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:29pm

    Every Director of HR or Director of Information Systems or Director of Whatever in every state, local and federal agency in the country.  Not to mention the managers and senior specialists and whatnot all below those director levels. There are far more "white collar" union members working for government than teachers, cops and firemen combined.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 3:49pm

    Just to clarify, are you saying these governments workers lag behind their corporate counterparts? In income?  In job satisfaction?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:48pm

    I am saying they enjoy a level of job security that no other white collar worker in America enjoys, whatever their individual job satisfaction or performance may be.  Government keeps growing in large part due to undue influence by special interests groups, that includes both unions and the Chamber of Commerce.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:37pm

    Now I'm confused. Other workers have made great strides compared to government workrs, yet governmnt workers have better job security?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:13pm

    Look at the bottom for a reply.


    by jasonmillerdc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:30am

    Again, I think unions have their place, just not the place they currently reside.

    What does moving unions out of that "place" look like? A matter of legislation as in Wisconsin, the mass firing Reagan used so effectively, or what?

    The idea that many union members are "behind the powercurve" reiterates the notion that collective bargaining creates a false economy; giving a share of wealth and power to those who should have less of both.

    It is a compelling idea and the growth of its acceptance marks the relentless movement toward the right in this country. 

    In your framework of a center excluded by extremes, do you see this steady movement toward the Right? Or does me talking like that put me on your Fringe?

     

     


    by moat on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:12pm

    There is no "steady movement to the right" in America, as the right is currently defined by "gays, guns and God" by the left.  We have been steadily smack in the middle of both parties, getting the worst from each in some strange Fascist state that pretends to be free.

    Unions should be helping those who need to the most help, those at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder or those struggling to climb to the upper ones.  Trade unions and service workers make perfect sense in "framework" while information technology workers do not.

    I said the union is behind the powercurve with regards to history.  They missed their chance to use their influence to permanently affect change, settling instead for fighting the same battles at every turn inside silos of industry or government, leaving 90% of the nation's workers behind.

    No, I would not use legislation to move unions anywhere.  I think the hyperbole in WI far outweighed the actual facts of that legislation.


    by jasonmillerdc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:49am

    Interesting myth on unions and schools close to home: Montgomery County.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-americas-schools...

    There are also all those high-achieving school systems in places like Finland that are heavily unionized.


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:37pm

    Good to see you, Jason.  Your voice should add nicely to the conversation here.  That said, do you think the stimulus was excessive?  Because I see continued high unemployment that makes me think the stimulus was tepid.

    At the time the 800 billion plan passed, GDP was at about $13 trillion a year.  So we got a 6.1% stimulus, which is pretty darned substantial.  However, it took more than 2 years to spend the money so you really have to judge it against 2 years of GDP, which would be like $27 trillion, or 2.9%.  That's really not that much!


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 1:09pm

    Hey, Destor.  Good to see you as well.  As to the "stimulus" I would have to expand the definition to include all factors and not simply the 800 billion that passed soon after Obama took office.  It was really a continuation of the TARP program when Bush left office and includes the moves the Fed made as well. 

    As a simple percentage of GDP, I agree it wasn't substantial, but our continued use of these reactionary methods to address widespread and systemtic problems seems to be throwing good money after bad in pursuit of non-existent goals beyond mere survival.  I agree that survival is important, but for a nation it must include strategy as well as tactics.


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:24pm

    Definitely agree that smarter, more people and jobs focused spending could have had a much greater impact.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:11pm

    We aren't worthy.


    by Resistance on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:31pm

    Welcome back Jason.  


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:46pm

    Thanks, b!


    by jasonmillerdc on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:50pm

    How about a sustainable agenda of increased and permanent tax cuts for the rich, legislation to approve perpetual war, abolition of Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid, less regulation of Wall Street, of business and the environment, elimination of the minimum wage and child labor laws along libertarian lines, and freeing the mega-banks from consumer protection rules, which will unleash the power of free markets and balance the budget?


    by NCD on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:41pm

    There, i just did not have the heart to say it! ha

    One, just one reasonable measure offered by repubs in the last decade!

    Just one!


    by Richard Day on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:40pm

    I forgot outlawing OTC pregnancy tests or a doctor presenting a diagnosis of pregnancy until the fetus is viable or the final month of pregnancy, whichever comes last, as a legal and moral way to end abortion and protect the unborn. Sound like a plan? Maybe Mitch in Indiana could try it?


    by NCD on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:59pm

    No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley.

    They all strike me as reasonable efforts.

    Just let me know if I'm getting annoying tonight...

    ;0)


    by Obey on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:01pm

    No Child Left Behind, left all the children who would be left behind anyway behind.

    Medicare prescription drug laws were giveaways to the trillion dollar prescription companies.

    McCain Feingold was worthless as long as repubs put fascists on the Supremes.

    It was not until I got to Sarbanes that I spit up all my coffee on my keyboard. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaha

    You owe me a keyboard cleanup. hahahahaahahahahha

    Boy that reregulation of Wall Street really worked. hahahahahahahah

     

    How ya doin Obey?


    by Richard Day on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:12pm

    Hey somebody's gotta rile ya up around here, Dick!!

    I'm just trying to get away from work - don't mind me...


    by Obey on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:19pm

    I thought it was no child left a dime.....no fatcat left behind....God Bless George W. Bush and his tenacity in catching Osama Bin Laden.


    by NCD on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:37am

    The new paradigm 


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:55am

    Not sure I see anyone running on that platform and I didn't vote for Ron Paul in the last election, so I am not entirely sure what this red herring has to do with what I wrote.  That said, there are a lot of things the federal government does that I think would be better managed and financed at the state level.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:54am

    Hi Jason!

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:38pm

    Hey, Double D!  How's life?


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 8:55am

    Oh good. Jason is here, so all the idiots from TPM are hereby assembled. Now, I can warn people.

    (Sorry folks, but frankly, that one's totally deserved).


    by bwakfat on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:03pm

    How ya doin Sweetheart?

    Oh we need Jason.

    But somebody has to wake up Sleepin'. hahahhaahahahhah


    by Richard Day on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:14pm

    Where did sleepin go?

    I really miss his viewpoints.


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:26am

    Well Sleepin is a hard workin trucker as you well know Resistance.

    He comes here in fits and starts.

    We will see him soon I am sure.

    It is just that he and Jason would go at it in the old days and it was a fun show!


    by Richard Day on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:37am

    Whose got the extinguisher?  

    Blogging may not be a blood sport, but it sure can hurt at times. 


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:51am

    Well, I have tried to improve my communications style over the years and much of the change could be attributed to Weepin Jeezus. (Sorry, I couldn't resist just one more poke....) 

    That said, I will still go at it for days on end if my point isn't getting through.  Only difference now is I tend not try and make the same point.  I will simply start debating some other inconsistency as it is introduced.  Enough red herrings in America to give everyone some fish.

    Not sure what it would take to get me to come out with guns a'blazing once more.  I would like to think I outgrew it, but I will let you know once I get the radio show started and you can tell me.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:26am

    I see some things never change.  Given the lack of intelligent conversation at TPM these days, I would say all the interesting people have assembled here.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:22am

    Perhaps the conversation there is over your head.

    Seriously, that comment brought the collective IQ here into the single digits.

     

    Later.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:47am

    Wow.  Some choice four-letter words popped into my head with this little tidbit, but I will leave them unsaid.  What I will say is that you are still as unnecessarily combative as ever, leveling personal attacks at people as if that was logical and rational debate.  Good luck with that.  I am sure it brings you nothing but heartache and pain in the real world.  Namaste.


    by jasonmillerdc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:42am

    Hey, Jason! Glad to see you took my suggestion! Whether we agree or disagree on any given subject, I enjoy discussing our points of view and am glad to have you here!

    I hope that there a lot of people out there who will pay attention to what happened in 2010 and realize it can happen again in 2012 if they stay home. Yes, we missed some golden opportunities in the early days of the Obama administration. Talk was the repub party was dead for at least a generation, yet somehow they pulled it out and managed to become the majority party even though the numbers said they weren't. Now they are threatening to take it all, and I dread having to see what they will do to us if they control the whole thing.

    It's hard enough to push the country left as it is. Imagine how much more difficult it will be once they privatize Social Security, dismantle Medicare and Medicaid, ditch the small gains we've made in health care, get rid of a woman's right to control her reproductive life, send the gays back into hiding, and destroy the unions. If they win the Senate and the White House it could happen. Fast. They won't squander their majority.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:53pm

    All this after such a nice lunch!  I will, of course, have to take a bit of exception to your list of supposed future catastrophes at the hands of "them" while "we" simply need to fight harder and take better advantage of majorities.

    I think democrats took perfect "advantage" of the president's majority.  They passed all the standard things many on the left wanted to see done.  They didn't do all of it, of course.  Can't piss off Wall Street or Corporate American anymore than the right can.

    This is part and parcel of our continuing problem as a nation.  There is no Us versus Them.  It is THEM versus us.  There isn't even a contest because both sides are playing the ends against the middle.  Have been for years. 

    I would have expected you and folks like you to come out of the Republican party as independents looking to transform the craziness they just left behind.  Instead, they high-tailed it for friendly territory and never looked back except in horror.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:19am

    Like it or not, this is a two party country, Jason. You can call yourself an independent, but the bottom line is, unless you vote for a repub or a dem, you are squandering your vote. The "independent party" as of yet, has no viable candidates of its own.

    I am not "in love" with my new party. As much as you had problems working with the repub party to transform it from the inside out, I feel much the same about the dem party. I just see them as being more closely aligned with my values.

    I do look at the repub party in horror, but I feel ALMOST the same about the dems. Almost.

    Good to have you here!


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:16am

    Of course, I end up voting for one party or the other come election time given the lack of available alternatives, but that doesn't mean I claim either one as my party.  There are things I agree with on the left and things I agree with on the right, theoretically speaking. 

    The problem remains that neither side lives up to their purported ideals.  I think it would be impossible for you to change the democratic party as a former republican; however, you would likely have better luck than I did in changing the GOP.

    I would be happy to rejoin the democratic party as a moderate, long my political home before my last sojourn on the right, I am just not sure it would do any good.  I think my political destiny involves a bigger microphone and as much objectivity I can muster to critique both camps.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:31am

    Where the Democratic Party went wrong; ......when they mocked God.

    There are elements of the Democratic Party who want to attack a basic pillar, and then bemoan the fact the Nation REJECTS the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party has allowed elements to openly mock religious values.

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness,

    these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

    The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    Washington's Farewell Address 1796 

    THESE FIRMEST PROPS  …OF THE DUTIES OF MEN AND CITIZENS

    A PILLAR, A PROP …… Squandered by Democrats who want to mock and reject religous people and GOD.

    Instead it is the Democratic Party that is being REJECTED.

    The Republicans know this, Patriots know this, only the Democrats wonder why God prevails and the Democrats fail.

    God will not be mocked,


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:52am

    Depends. Which God? Which religion?

    I recall the Monkey God who's very much into self-mockery. Nothing wrong with a bit of self-deprecating humor if you're God - God knows he/she/it/they can take it.

    Really, if you talk about our Father Art in Heaven, wouldn't Art be be a better Father if he knew how to rough-house with the kids a bit and take a few cute teases rather than be the one always complaining about who left the lights on and toothpaste in the sink?

    In terms of God prevailing - explain your terms of victory? What do you think God wants out of this mess of a planet? Can you blame liberals for the mess in Congo, poverty in Bangladesh, hurricanes and floods gutting New Orleans?


    by Desider on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:26am

    I think dagblog needs comment ratings.  This one is worth a bump!


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:21am

    Bump!


    by Desider on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:07am

    Wish the photographer had snapped this just a second earlier or later as I bet they were both smiling.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:32am

    They're both smiling, just slightly upturned corners of mouth, not big toothy grins. Much cooler.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:26am

    One of my very favorite photos of the Prez!


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 6:56pm

    That's a bump?  My wife and I call it a "terrorist fist jab."


    by brewmn on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:12am

    You think you’re going to draw people to the Democratic Party fighting for the Monkey God? 

    That’s the problem with the Democratic Party.

    Sure you got the votes from adherents of the monkey God; …..problem is America is predominantly Christian, 

    The majority of people of Christian faith, vote to support Christian values.

    You may not think it fair or right, but it is what it is.

    To the Christian voters, the democrats come across as supporters of the un-godly, the un- Christian

    The Democrats are supporters of the monkey god.

    You go ahead and keep fighting to promote the morality of the monkey god, and of course the adherents of the monkey god will support the Democrats, and you’ll continue to lose.

    If the democrats want martyrdom and want to cry out about how unfair this attitude is, they'll win hands down amongst their supporters, but it doesn’t win elections.

    The so called Christians will continue to rally against a perceived enemy of the Christian God. They’ll continue to find their champion, in the Republican Party even though you can point out the flaws, The Christian voters will continue to vote for the lesser of the two evils, because the Democrats are in their face, protecting the monkey God, instead of defending the Christian God.


    by Resistance on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:04pm

    The majority of Americans are pagan tree-worshippers hung up on Christmas ornaments, frontal nudity, side-arms and debit cards. Any inkling of "compassion" or "turn the other cheek" and they run for their tasers or hop in their SUVs to mow someone down. The less personal, the better - phone it in with a drone if possible. For all their talk of faith, Americans are so knock-kneed teeth-chattering scared that any little bit of public affection or illiterate brown person with a bomb will tear hundreds of years of civilization down to the ground.

    The faux-Christian voters will continue to vote for any daddy figure who promises to protect them at all costs, and shows the most nastiness towards anyone who might express sympath for the downtrodden. Unbridled rage and incomprehension welcome - it's a sign of being "serious" and "grown up".

    Of course after Charles Colson ran over his grandmother for Christ, he made sure to drop a love offering in the tithing bowl. Just to be sure, in case someone's keeping track.


    by Desider on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:22pm

    The faux-Christian voters will continue to vote for any daddy figure who promises to protect them at all costs

    The Republicans would do say the same thing about the Democrats and their reliance on Big Government. 

    Everyone's looking for a subsidy.


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:08am

    The Republicans say a lot of bullshit, such as saying Reagan tax cuts raised revenue when he turned around and raised tax cuts and it still didn't produce that much growth. (Republicans also like to include Carter's last year in their calculations to make the growth bigger).

    There's more government subsidy for producing unneeded corn and producing weapons than there is for useful human services. 

    The deal with providing health benefits is that people do get sick, and do need treatment, and you can easily measure how well you're doing.

    Pay for weapons and armies and searching out terrorists? A never ending buckethole in space - suddenly everyone becomes a terrorist, every country needs invading, and gotta have more money.

    The last Democratic president balanced the budget, and was even going to use budget surplus to pay down any Social Security differences. The following Republican president broke the budget and unlinked revenues from spending, sending us into deficit freefall, over $3 trillion short for his 2-term presidency.

    That's history - you can look it up.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:24am

    Oh I beleive you.

    I have a friend from Montana, and he tells me the Barge industry on the Mississippi gets subsidies.

    In a place called Peck Dam they have to store water in order to protect the barge industry.

    Amtrak has to maintain the rail - lines and the coal indusrty uses this rail line.

    For what? So we can have cheaper coal or does it put more money in the CEO's pocket?

    We subsidize, so the products will be cheaper?

    Why not cut out the subsidies and I'll have more money in my pocket, rather than paying higher taxes in order to get a rebate?    

    Big AG Corporations get subsidies.

    CUT OUT THE SUBSIDIES  and maybe we can support the safety net? 

    Grants to colleges, another place to look for money to support the safety Net.

    It's time to prioritize


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:43am

    Grants to colleges are a widespread good for the country as a whole:

    - more educated citizenry for civic choices, general good

    - better trained specialists

    - more competitive workers in the economy

    - higher pay, so more returned in yearly taxes

    In terms of the barge industry, I imagine we're also damming the river to also protect people downstream. Are infrastructure projects worth it? Really has to be evaluated. But again, transportation is a basic need, and the decision is about how much we subsidize. We could just have dirt roads to everyone's house and let them put their own pavement in. Not too clever. Trains are subsidized, highways are subsidized, water travel is subsidized - what's the balance, what are the goals?

    But hard to see production of corn syrup in the same category. Yeah, making sure there's sufficient crops to prevent famine is one thing. Creating a whole industry based on those subsidies is another.


    by Desider on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:44am

    Except none of the crops we subsidize would do much in case of famine.  We are damaged by our poorly concieve and implemented "solutions" at every turn.


    by jasonmillerdc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:52am

    Plus they make grain storage as a way of stocking up


    by Desider on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:06am

    God is mocked constantly by the very thing s/he created.


    by jasonmillerdc on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:20am

    Truth doesn't matter in this worldview, just the sacred embrace of the tyrian color of Caesar

    "health care debate was a ridiculous waste of time"- Yes! getting 30 to 40 million poor folks health care is/was ridiculous.

    Sadly I simply wanted a fair system that penciled.  Silly me.  If only I let pundits shape my opinions to the "middle" than all would be well. Forgive me that I can not follow this logic. For the most part pundits are idiots, ignorant partisens defining the debate in the interests of the powers that be.  

    But what they say often reasonates to many for reasons of scale, the world they look at these solutions sound sensible, even if clearly wrong once one steps back and actually does accurate analysis.  

    Hi Jason, I hope all is personally well.

    Best,


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:05am

    Is pundit synonomous with lobbyists?

    pun·dit/ Noun: An expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public:

     lobbyist: someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer.


    by Resistance on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:15am

    I would say that truth doesn't matter in this worldview either, only the democratic party spin and theoretical gains.  I am quite familiar with the health care bill.  It was barely adequate to our needs, those 30 to 40 million people you speak of, and is hated by more than half the country for various reasons both conservative and liberal.

    Sorry you are unable to follow my logic.  I thought it was pretty clear. 

    A lack of innovation and empathy on the part of the democratic party may have unforeseen consequences for the president as he tries to run for reelection.  Hyperpartisanship on both sides of the aisle have created a situation where moderates on the right may not pull that lever for him given a viable alternative on the right.

    Not sure what the last parting shot was, but I hope all is well in your world as well.


    by jasonmillerdc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:39am

    No parting shot, just geniunely wishing you well at a personal level.

     


    by Saladin on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:18pm

    Not the well wishing.  That was quite sincere and ditto.  I was speaking of the idea that if I was to but apply accurate analysis to the situation, I would come to different conclusions.  Perhaps I misread.


    by jasonmillerdc on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:08am

    IN RESPONSE TO A COMMENT ABOVE THAT WAS GETTING TOO NARROW: I can't help your confusion.  Job security, the inability to be fired for negligence or even gross-misconduct in some cases, is something altogether different from salary or benefits, which is pretty comparable for government professional versus private sector.  I never said other areas had advanced further relative to government employees, only that teachers would likely be better off without the union killing every reform proposal that doesn't include a genuflection in their direction.


    by jasonmillerdc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:34am

    Go back to Adam Smith.Self interest is the most effective motivator. The " Common Good" produces the tragedy of the commons." Self interest produces automobiles. But equally and inevitably perpetuated slavery in the civilized, religious South. Or locking the doors of the Triangle Shirt Waist factory. 

    Apply that to teachers' unionization  and , yes,  it results in unions protecting them at the expense of their students. But surely you recognize the corollary  that without unionization  tax payers will inevitably exploit teachers as slave owners and factory owners exploited those under their control.. 

    Teachers without unions would inevitably have the lowest pay and worst working conditions that their fellow citizens could impose upon them.Why in this one case should self interest lead to any other result? 


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:26am

    You can't help the kids without helping the teachers--who else is in there with them?


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:52pm

    I don't agree that teachers would be any worse off than other professionals with advanced degrees.  They certainly wouldn't be slaves to society akin to factory workers.  That is comparing apples to orangutans in my opinion. 

    I actually think they are slaves now and had much better prospects before they were unionized. Our education system is broken for many reasons, one of which is the teachers unions and the special interest pressure they apply.

    Parents, public officials, private contractors and all the rest play an equally damaging part as well, so we have plenty of blame to go around.


    by jasonmillerdc on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:06am

    There are dozens of careers, all them non-union, that have improved their lot in recent decades.  That most unionized "professions" remain behind the powercurve should tell you something.

    I thought you were suggesting that non-union workers were doing better


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:16pm

    This is a caricature of what unions have done, Jason. Read Diane Ravitch, for example. Read the article I posted above. This is a truth whose buy-by date has passed.


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:51pm

    I wasn't commenting on what unions have done historically.  As a former union member myself and a huge Howard Zinn fan, I was quite clear in my belief that all workers today owe unions a huge debt of gratitude; however, that doesn't change the fact that unions today no longer reflect that storied past.  Unions have become a caricature of themselves.


    by jasonmillerdc on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:58am

    Latest Comments