Alan Haskvitz, a teacher for 45 years, honestly didn’t mean to place so many states in danger of going bankrupt. He just wanted a secure retirement plan.
For over 45 years I have enjoyed making a living teaching. It hasn’t been easy or lucrative, but it had its rewards, one of which was a secure retirement plan.
Now, after reading the recent California Little Hoover Commission Report that recommends that public school retirements be reduced, even for those who are already retired, and the actions of the Ohio, Idaho, and Wisconsin republicans in accusing teachers and their pensions and bargaining rights as mainly responsible for that state’s financial situation, I am sorry I became a teacher. I honestly didn’t mean to place so many states in danger of going bankrupt.
I also realize now that I am sorry to have chosen education as a career for other reasons. I am sorry that my wife may have to work until she is well past 70 and endure the rigors of 12-hour shifts as a nurse. I am sorry that I may become a burden to my children because my retirement income won’t cover the costs of extended care. I am sorry for those students I encouraged to become teachers, telling them to ignore the glow of the better-paying professions.
I am sorry that the government is punishing me for being a civil servant by taking away over 60 percent of the Social Security benefits I had paid for during years of part-time work in the private sector to help put two children through college. I am sorry that, if I outlive my wife, I won’t be eligible for her Social Security benefits—because I’m a public servant.
♦◊♦
I am also very sorry that the vast conservative media have chosen teachers as a topic for loathing and hatred.
I am sorry that the right-wing politicians and conservative think tanks are at work to convince the public that education would work better if schools were private. I am sorry that the producers of Waiting for “Superman” didn’t travel a few miles farther to see my school and talk to the parents and students. I am sorry that the writers of the movie didn’t get a chance to see what is really happening in America’s schools. I’m sorry they didn’t call their work Waiting for “Funding.”
The use of misleading facts to bully educators is rampant. Most recently, Wisconsin teachers, fighting merely for the right to negotiate as a union, were accused of causing over 7 million dollars of damages to the State Capitol Building and grounds. The media spread that lie and never followed up with the fact that the damages never were properly assessed. Sorry to say, but this is just one example of the media’s bullying of teachers. When is the last time the public learned that 145,100 public school teachers were physically attacked and that 276,000 were threatened with injury?
I am also sorry that, as a teacher, I did such a poor job of teaching students to think for themselves, and let the fear mongers drug their critical thinking skills. I am sorry that I spent so much time getting my students ready for the state test that I did a poor job of teaching them to ask for proof when an organization says it offers fair and balanced news reporting.
♦◊♦
Until today I never stopped to look at what my decision to become a teacher had cost. I wrote a letter to one of the commissioners on the Little Hoover Commission expressing how my decision to become a teacher had cost my family dearly and that their findings made me sorry I had become a teacher.
The response was hardly unexpected. The secretary of the commissioner responded by writing that teaching was a valued profession. But apparently not valued enough for the commission to advise the California legislature not to leave the teacher retirement plan alone. After all, the budget has to be balanced and God forbid there is a tax increase. Sorry to say, their recommendations, if followed, would result in extensive court battles, legal costs, and the possibility that teachers would continue to be the scapegoats whenever the economy is troubled. By the way, sorry to say, not one member of the Little Hoover Commission is a teacher or educator, and the commission is dominated by big business members. The findings of the Little Hoover Commission are not unexpected, given President Hoover’s legacy.
♦◊♦
I left the financial world after tiring of the constant manipulation of the general public to add to the company’s bottom line. I am sorry I didn’t fight my temptation to help others and instead stay in the corporate world with a secretary, reserved parking spot, executive dining room, paid-for college courses, free health care, my own office, and a chance to continue to hobnob with the movers and shakers of the world from Richard Nixon and king-maker Asa Call to Ronald Reagan.
At age 22 I had my own upscale apartment in Los Angeles and a racing Cobra. Life was good and the pension plan was lucrative as I had to pay nothing into it. The company was going to move to a beach community and I would have been a made man. All I had to do was ignore my desire to help others.
Sorry, but I couldn’t resist: I entered a teaching college and, now, over 45 years later, I have a lot of apologies to hand out.
I know that my fellow teachers have spent decades teaching our students about the evils of bullying and to not tolerate it. The theme “Don’t Be a Bystander” is one of our major lesson plans. And yet, I am sorry to say, we are now the ones being bullied. Perhaps it is time for us to join together and write letters, make phone calls, and express ourselves to our elected officials to let them know that there are millions of teachers who vote—and we won’t want them to be sorry.
—Photo corinne.schwarz/Flickr
About Alan Haskvitz
Vocalyze
Alan: I have mixed feelings here. On one hand I almost became a teacher. I passed the MTELs four years ago, but never followed through because the fiscal constraints most municipalities are in means more layoffs and fewer jobs. Plus in Mass. you have to get your master’s within five years, and more school just wasn’t in the cards with a kid on the way and my wife also in grad school. I have many, many friends who teach and they are all fantastic people dedicated to their job. They are invaluable.
But there are valid criticisms of teachers.
Who else do you know that gets automatic pay increases regardless of job performance? That’s the way it works for teachers around here. They get contractually obligated step increases simply for the length of time they’re employed. Their raises aren’t tied to test scores or how their students have fared. And that’s not right. Teachers, like most everyone else, should be held accountable based on their accomplishments.
Furthermore I find it more than a little disingenuous that you portray teachers as the poor, weak kids getting bullied on the proverbial playground. At least where I’m from, teachers’ unions wield extraordinary power and it’s been that way for years. When it comes time to negotiate new contracts, they have almost always gotten their way in terms of automatic raises and fantastic benefit and pension agreements. But now, in one of the worst financial situations in history, times have changed. There is no more money. Budgets are being cut or at best, level-funded. That means everyone (including teachers) has to renegotiate and do their part. But any elected official who dares express this sentiment is automatically labeled as “anti-teacher” and “anti-education” by the outspoken union.
There’s no easy answer and it’s an issue that is only complicated and worsened when people take sides. I have all the respect in the world for teachers and they deserve their fair share, but not at the expense of other town employees. This is a problem everywhere that requires compromise from all sides.
> Their raises aren’t tied to test scores or how their students have fared. And that’s not right. Teachers, like most everyone else, should be held accountable based on their accomplishments.
You, like many other misguided people, seem to think that test scores are directly correlated to accomplishments of both student and teacher. I have never seen a study suggest this. I have, however seen many studies (like this one: http://epi.3cdn.net/b9667271ee6c154195_t9m6iij8k.pdf) refute this.
You don’t get to see the “accomplishments” of teachers in a measurable, quantifiable, excel spreadsheet neatly bundled at the end of the school year. That’s just not how learning or accomplishment works.
Ronald: You, like many other misguided people, must not realize that in Massachusetts those tests scores do matter. Greatly. All students MUST pass the MCAS if they want to graduate high school. I’m not saying I agree with this, because I don’t. I have many problems with the test. But the fact remains, it’s mandatory. That means teachers need to get their students to pass or they literally can’t get a diploma.
I understand teaching to a test is often counter-productive. And I agree it doesn’t truly measure learning. But guess what? That’s the reality here in my state. So in that respect, by looking at the number of a teacher’s students who pass/fail that test, there IS a quantifiable way to judge their job performance.
Daddy Files: That is almost like saying I’m going to base your work for my company based on how many people decide they need the product. It is the consumer’s choice whether they buy a product. This is not the best metaphor… but hopefully it gets you thinking in the right direction. We who value education cannot assume that everyone being taught wants to learn – it’s just not true. Many parents do not even see the value of education, let alone the students. I would be appalled and enraged if you told me I was going to be judged on someone else’s effort. Even the best teachers in the world cannot teach a student who does not value their education, or does not accept consequences or encouragement from the school they are registered, or plain and simply refuses to work, or is never in attendance, or caught up in drug use, or might fall under the umbrella of any number of issues. If we want to discuss having what you describe as a fair appraisal of teachers, I think we need to focus on their planning and the delivery of lessons, and not a student’s performance. Teenagers in particular are notorious for lashing out when they are upset with someone, including teachers; and to the point that they harm themselves and their grade-point average. A teenager who does not care about in-school consequences being in control of adult’s appraisals? This seems like an ill-born idea.
Mr. Haskvitz,
Nothing wrong with being a teacher. My family’s full of them.
Your fault is that you believed your union leaders when they negotiated retirement plans knowing, along with the administrations, that nobody would be funding the plans. When the bill finally came due, as with other public pension plans, those on both sides of the negotiation devoted to kicking the can down the road aren’t there. Easy to give a benefit that doesn’t cost anything today. The unions know it, too. Easy to demand and get a benefit the employer isn’t going to pay for. And the members think it’s just great.
As Chris Christie said to the firefighters, more or less: Why boo me? I’m the one telling you the truth. Previous administrations did not fund the benefits they promised you. We have no money.
But we theoretically would have had the money to fund these benefits when the time came, right? That’s what the financial experts said. And we listened, because they promised they knew best. So before we blame unions or employers for laughing all the way to the bank because they spent money that didn’t exist, let’s look at others who did the same thing, and were bailed out by the federal government because they were “too big to fail”.
The message is: it’s okay if our schools fail, but not our banks and morally upstanding financial institutions, right?
Things are tough all over. Our local county constable’s office just cut 97 positions, only 7 of those were support/office help. Ninety were officers on the street. Are teachers more important than law enforcement? Education leads to lower crime rates, yes. But that is long-term. Ninety fewer officers means longer response times today.
We can point fingers all day and threaten law suits. The bottom line is that for several decades there has been plenty of fiscal irresponsibility, and arguing that point is not going to fill the coffers. What is happening all across the country is beyond awful, but it’s not just teachers feeling it. (See my 2nd sentence above.) Instead of wasting more money fighting, can’t we just tighten our belts for a few years and move on. Things get better eventually; they always do. In fact, they’ll probably get better before most cases over this mess are even settled.
BTW, I am a teacher. I am very passionate about my job. My state doesn’t have teacher unions so I really don’t understand the teachers in Wisconsin. (I think it’s unethical to call in sick to rally at the capital. Take a personal day, whatever, but don’t lie about being sick.) And the movie mentioned was made by a very left-leaning liberal, not a conservative. Please don’t lump him in with the “fair and balanced” crowd. Personally, I watch and read news from several sources. I’m glad there is more than one viewpoint out there. I wouldn’t say either end of the spectrum owns the truth.
I’ve also been a teacher for 40+ years, and if I’ve been getting rich at taxpayer expense, I’ve worked in the private sector as well. I must have misplaced my fortune. Maybe there is a hole in my pocket. Of course, I don’t get performance bonuses; I get no Christmas bonus; I get no annual review to determine wage increases. I have no chance of negotiating an equity share of anything. Should I innovate—and I do—I get “thanks”—but that’s hard to spend.
I also accept lower wages than the private sector for equivalent work in exchange for alleged security—which is now under attack with a “too bad for you, schmuck,” attitude. “We’re broke, and you have to take it in the neck,” is the trend.
Let’s look at the trendy prejudice.
Start with the notion of “who else gets automatic pay increases?” The fact is, almost everyone. Inflation is a fact of life in America, and unless an organization wants to renegotiate contracts annually, increases are built in. We aren’t in the Weimar Republic quite yet—two and three year contracts with automatic pay raises are standard operating procedure. Legislative staff and the military are two examples. This is from the CBO:
“Members of the military receive increases in their compensation by many means–through annual across-the-board raises and periodic longevity increases,…”
Read it yourself at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5307&type=0
The current political conversation has redefined terms for advantage in what is nothing less than class warfare, a war waged by the rich against the middle class, an attitude of “I’ve got mine, so fuck you.” that has gripped this country for a generation, ever since corporate coaches began to read The Art of War and guys who sell buttons and beeswax play at being warriors and brag about running through brick walls every day.
The rich are winning. From the early 1960s to the 1980s, marginal tax rates for the rich were above 70%. Alleged trickle-down economics and excitedly pointing to the Laffer curve have reduced personal marginal rates to half that—with no general benefit to the economy, no spike in jobs, no soaring productivity—but the percentage ownership of American wealth by the super-rich has soared, executive compensation has become an international embarrassment, a tax-funded bailout has rescued corporate America, and—whew!—bonuses are back.
In that 3 years of turmoil, not a single executive has gone to jail, though the world economy was brought to the brink of bankruptcy. Last week in China, a group of execs at a battery plant were thrown behind bars for poisoning the ground with lead. I’m not suggesting the Chinese have a better economic system, but when was the last time an American executive did jail time for anything? Punitive damages are paid by corporations—which recoup their losses be raising prices. Throw some guilty asses in jail and let’s see what happens.
But why are we going broke?
The major reason America is going broke is “discretionary spending,” a phrase that since Ronald Reagan was president has been equated with “entitlements,” meaning Medicare, Social Security, and the like. But discretionary spending also means military spending.
Can we dare to talk about that?
We have been fighting two wars for a decade each, and seem to be on the brink of a third. Military expenditures under George Bush were removed from general accounting. Thus, while we equip American fighting forces with bombers invisible to radar, we fight goatherds and shepherds equipped with slingshots, an enemy able to disrupt the American way of life by putting bombs in their shoes and underwear, an enemy that is bankrupting America in the same cost-effective way the Soviet Union was bankrupted. When Reagan went all-in on Star Wars defenses, Soviet leadership tried to compete—busted. Pulling out of Afghanistan came too late for the Soviets. We have never pulled back our spending—but increased it. Millions of American citizens are taking off their shoes in airports—if you’d care to calculate the cost on productivity of those long lines, go ahead.
All this in search of a man who is 6’ 3” tall and attached to a dialysis machine—but we can’t find the mf, not even with satellite surveillance that can spot the fleas on a dog’s ass. Our troops march across the poppy fields that bought the bullets aimed at them and poison American youth as heroin—but we don’t burn those fields for fear of pissing off the warlords who own them and who charge American troops “tolls” for moving ordnance across their territories. We wage no economic war with our enemies—instead our military relies on the rhetoric of war waged by nation-states without acknowledging we are not at war with nations. There are no borders; destroy leadership, and a dozen more appear. We conquer nothing: this is not Japan or Germany in 1945. It’d not Korea in 1953. It’s not even Vietnam in 1968.
We do not finance our foreign adventures from general revenues, but do so by borrowing money. You may have noticed no Buy War Bond efforts; that’s because we are selling America’s future to oil potentates and China—the folks who buy those bonds. If the dollar is in the toilet, that’s why. There is a glut of American paper on the world markets. Who needs dollars?
Under Bill Clinton, American budgets showed a surplus. Under George Bush, the deficit tripled—that’s the cost of war unbooked wars.
The cost of servicing that debt is about $5,000 per year for every man, woman and child in the US. Average household, say, $12,000.
That’s just debt SERVICE—not the debt itself.
Given those facts—not ideals, not suppositions, not characterizations—the notion that what bankrupts America is greedy teachers is an outrage. The “Third Rail” of American policy is not Social Security—it is military spending.
The reason we go broke is war. Unwinnable wars. Wars with no exit strategy. Wars with no strategic goals. Wars with no definable enemy. Wars fought against enemies whose cost of waging war against us is next to nothing. Wars where we protect the resources our enemies require to finance that cost.
And..oh yeah … those generals get longevity pay increases.
Beautifully put.
To be fair the financial policy of the Clinton administration was just as bad as Reagan’s and Bush’s, there was still a very large deregulation trend, in fact if I remember correctly, it was during his administration that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, which was a major factor in the recent financial turmoil. The reason that Clinton ran a budget surplus was that we were currently going through the dot-com bubble, and that he didin’t wage any prolonged wars of occupation.
If you’re using his administration as an example of why waging wars on a deficit is costly, then by all means go ahead, but Clinton and other Democrats are just as much to blame for this mess. A majority of both parties have become beholden to their corporate sponsors and we would be well rid of them.
Not to mention the use of the Social Security surplus to effect the appearance of a surplus. Clinton was and remains committed to zero-based budgeting, like all DLC members.
“Start with the notion of “who else gets automatic pay increases?” The fact is, almost everyone. Inflation is a fact of life in America, and unless an organization wants to renegotiate contracts annually, increases are built in. We aren’t in the Weimar Republic quite yet—two and three year contracts with automatic pay raises are standard operating procedure.”
- I believe the writer was referring to nonunion workers. Hundreds of thousands of them, myself included, have taken significant pay CUTS due to the economy. When was the last time you had your salary REDUCED, Perry? That would be n-e-v-e-r.
“Members of the military receive increases in their compensation by many means…”
- Seriously? You’re trying to equate the deserved compensation from your teaching job to that from military service? How insulting to those who risk their lives to protect our country! UGH! Your whole argument against current foreign policy, though valid, is just a convenient distraction that has nothing to do with STATE and LOCAL budgets, which is where almost all of the education spending comes from. You do know that, right? You are a teacher after all.
“The current political conversation has redefined terms for advantage in what is nothing less than class warfare, a war waged by the rich against the middle class”
- No. Its not rich vs middle class. Its govt union vs. nonunion. Its the vast majority of workers in the private sector (who also aren’t rich) paying taxes to give you comparatively lavish pensions and benefits with little accountability for the quality of your work, then watching as your govt union use the tax dollars we pay you with to elect govt officials who “negotiate” with those same unions to get you even more. The current budget problems may states are facing has simply caused that unfairness to become more apparent and intolerable. Your response is to raise taxes on the rich and all will be a-OK. Fine, but that won’t change the unfair advantage that govt unions have over private sector tax payers. You would still get benefits at our expense that even we don’t receive. That’s the “conversation” and you clearly don’t understand it. Its not “I’ve got mine, so fuck you”, its “I already gave you mine, so FUCK YOU.”
I really enjoyed this article and of course, love to hear what Perry has to say. Right down to ol’ BL himself. Great work by you all. Glad to hear this side of the story.
Ronald.
Nobody said anything about “okay”. My wife went to a meeting with a state rep talking about teachers’ bennies. He said teachers need to organize to get their piece of the pie. No talk about the size of the pie.
Yeah, the people who failed to fund the pension plans should be penalized one way or another. If you don’t like bailouts of the bigs, don’t vote for Obama next time.
CALPERS is supposedly using a growth rate of 7.75% to calculate their necessary contributions to the plan. They’re still catastrophically behind. If they used, as was proposed, 7.5%, they’d be hugely further behind. Think they’re actually getting north of 7%?
I lived for nearly forty years in a Big Three/UAW town. I get it. Throw a tantrum (strike, etc.) and the money will magically appear.
Go for it.
You think Bush wouldn’t have done the bailouts, or another republican? The bail-out was prepared under bush, Obama and his administration were just the ones signing on the dotted line.
Ruplican or Democrat; there’s no difference, puppets on strings of the corporate sponsors.
You want a change; make new political parties.
It’s a little late for you, Mr. Haskvitz, and thanks for posting, but younger folk who might have doubts about going into the teaching profession may want to heed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s warning and “do something else.”
The degree to which education funding is responsible is debatable, but we are bankrupt, and this is the future.
1. Student test scores aren’t a fair way of assessing teachers. Too many differences in families, books-in-the-house, TV watching habits, parental support for scholarship, etc. Maybe peer visits would be a way to go. BTW, there aren’t a ton of “better teachers” waiting to take these jobs, if we only could fire the “bad” ones. Not at those wages. Maybe good benefits mitigate teacher drain to an extent.
2. I might favor ending all pensions, putting everyone on an expanded social security. This would be dependent on stopping all US wars, and other forms of nonsense like tax givebacks for the rich. I’d like to bill the Europeans for the defensive shield we put over them for 40 years, and the Chinese for our entry into WWII, because the Japanese attack was based on our gas embargo to support the Chinese.
In Brazil, we use peer visits, at least at the university level.
Furthermore, please bull me no shit about the States being broke, folks. Not when you’re funding three wars for no apparent purpose that the rest of the world can see.
But hey, if the U.S. wants to cut its own throat by voluntarily eliminating one of its only remaining advantages in the world – the quality of its university system – that’s fine with me. Or you folks can hire us furriners whenyou discover that you’re not getting any of your own people to be adequate teachers. That’ll be nice, too.
(BtW, Henry, I realize that you aren’t claiming the U.S. needs to cut teachers’ salaries. I should make that clear.]
Great article and disappointing responses. I’d expect a little more from people who are counting on public schools to educate their children. Yes there are fiscal issues and yes we should consider raising taxes where needed. Are there problems with some teachers and some union demands… yes, but if the teacher’s unions are so powerful why do teachers still struggle with the problems Mr. Haskvitz mentions? It’s a great myth that we are out of money and can’t pay for social services and education all we need to do is tax our corporations and wealthy in a manner in line with the rest of the world. If we can’t do that then raise taxes for the rest of us, we can’t continue to cut taxes and not spending. Either bring more revenue or cut defense spending and the holy grail of social security, these are the areas that must be addressed not NPR, planned parenthood and teachers.
@ Texas Teacher: Are teachers more important than law enforcement? That’s hardly a fair question, but you should really think about it more since you decided to post it. How many fewer law enforcement officers would your community need if all the adult offenders had received a stronger education and were more prepared for life after school? What percentage of the offenders in your area are illiterate? How many dropped out of high school? How many good teachers worked with them… really worked with them to convince them to stay? We better all start thinking about the long game, by your logic we’ll cut education in order to maintain crime suppression because the effects are immediate. Ever heard that old saying about an ounce of prevention… it’s a good one.
Dad On-The-Run,
Please reread my post. I specifically stated that education reduces crime rates over time, but cutting law enforcement leads to lower response times, etc. today. Not stating that law enforcement is more important. My point is that fiscal shortfalls are not just in education. Many professions are feeling it. But instead of finger pointing, fighting, etc., we all need to rally around the short-term solution. Then look at the long-term. Many teachers, officers, etc. are worried about rent/house payments, etc. TODAY. We’ve got to deal with the problem at hand first. Do I have all the answers? NO. But I can tighten my belt a little, work a few days here and there without pay, etc. if it means a keeping my job and knowing that next year, or the year after, will be better.
I read somewhere, I’m not sure where, that when the US was dealing with the Great Depression, people were more mobilized and not fighting along party lines. Maybe that’s part of our problem. But, no matter how it’s sliced, there are only so many dollars in the coffers. We’ve got to stop spending what we don’t have, whether CA, TX, VA or in Washington, DC.
Dad-on-the-Run.
Tell us about other countries who tax more than we do, and how they’re doing.
As an American citizen, I too grieve for these wars. I wish we could pull out of the Middle East yesterday and let the tribes sort things out. But our civilization is at stake. Spare me the revelation about how these wars are about oil–I already know that. I never bought the part of the Bush Doctrine which talked about bringing democracy to the region. My gut knew that was a fool’s errand.
The thing is, without oil the grocery shelves in New York City would be bare in a matter of days, if not hours. Imagine that. Alternative energies are still years away from mass viability. We cannot let the global oil supply fall into the hands of 3rd Century barbarians.
A thank you is in order to our troops. There has been no major attack on the homeland since 9/11, not that the terrorists aren’t trying. That part of the Bush Doctrine–fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here–has stood the test of time. (Truthers, give it a rest, Bill Clinton has called you “shameful.”)
Raise taxes on the wealthy? Surely anyone with more than a middle school education knows that the wealthy already pay the preponderance of U.S. taxes, and they’re getting antsy. Imagine if they go Ayn Rand on us.
Finally, about teachers, Look, there’s lot of good ones, but frankly, I’ve got two kids, and along with the education teachers provided, they also served up an unremitting initiation into the very tax and spend liberalism that got us into this fiscal mess.
No. It’s lack of revenue.
In the 1950′s the tax rate for the top 10% wad 90%!!! Ninety!
We managed to create a very nice middle class and infrastructure with that revenue.
Then came Regan… and it plummted down to 30%.
Highest it has been raise is 37% under Clinton.
Revenue problem…
“Our civilization is at stake?”
Oh, jeebus…. Of all the high-flying, ridiculous excuses for war, that has to be the worst I’ve ever heard.
In case you didn’t notice (and I realize that keeping up with all these “tribes” as you call them is difficult, expending brain cells urgently needed to calculate football betting pool odds), Sadam Hussein and Kadafi, while a bastards, are certainly not “barbarians from the third century”. They are a run-of the-mill, 20th century dictators of the sort your country has had absolutely no problems doing business with in the past – and has no difficultiues doing business with NOW, as a matter of fact.
So please bull me no shit about how warfare was the only way of dealing with them, especially when the U.S. (in the case of Iraq) and Britain (in the case of Libya) cheerfully worked with both of these men for decades. I am not a Fox News watcher and I happen to no history: there is not great imperative to war with these countries that’s driven by our need to protect our civilization.
Furthermore, there is no oil whatsoever in Afganistan, the only one of the three countries where the U.S. had some plausible (if thin) reason to invade in the name of self-defence. Oh, but then there’s the fact that your man Osama was armed and trained by the CIA.
I guess things are a bit less “us or them”, “black or white” than you’re making them out to be, neh Mark?
That part of the Bush Doctrine–fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here–has stood the test of time.
…the fuck?
Let me get this straight: you think that the war in Iraq qould have prevented the 9/11 attack, an attack carried out by Saudis (who are your allies, let us not forget)?
Furthermore, you think that you can prove a positive (the correctness of the Bush Doctrine) with negative evidence (the lack of terrorist attcks in the U.S. up to now)? Hell, Mark, that’s not even logic, let alone good theory re: public policy.
Your opinion is, however, an excellent example of how Americans have become a people who can no longer see the forest for the trees.
Mark Ellis.
As it happens, petroleum in its various distillations is the most compact, manageable method of moving, storing, and using energy.
Wind energy is, at best, an energy wash and a great subsidy-puller for the Connected.
Solar requires some rare, and sometimes toxic, minerals. Scaled up to the power generated by the Japanese generation plants currently in the news, one guy calculated that much solar capacity would have resulted in five tons of toxic metals swept into the ocean. Don’t know if he’s close, but, with energy, we have the law of Conservation of Matter and Energy and its corollary in matters of human effort, TANSTAAFL. New technology may not require the toxic stuff,but still we need other metals, which means mining, refining, and eventually disposing. Takes energy and causes pollution.
The batteries required for electric cars require toxic metal production and offer disposal problems of frightening complexity. You think Yucca Mountain is an issue….
So let’s use our own and not worry about the Middle East. Eventually we’ll get fusion.
Problem is the rest of the world which doesn’t have its own petroleum and coal.
So, yeah, if the war is really for oil, those who object can offer to do without it and without what it brings them–like food–if they want to walk the talk.
Otherwise, it’s magical thinking, such as a teacher of my acquaintance who is convinced the state is hiding money.
I have seen estimates that public pensions are underfunded by as much as $5 trillion. Take what you want from the Dod, depending on what you want to have happen, and see how long it will take just to catch up with public pensions.
There are a good many people over decades who are responsible for not funding public pensions to an actuarial reality. A lot. I’d have no problem seeing them all, every last one of them, hammered. But that would include the last local Ed Assn president but one and I don’t think most teachers would favor that.
And if we’re going to expropriate the loot of the rich, we can start with Michael Moore. And George Soros.
Our rates are going to push the businesses out? All the figures around this issue always center around an imaginary corporate rate of 35% without taking into account the loopholes which allow companies like GE to avoid taxes altogether. Our corporate tax rate is 0 to 35%… not 35%.
As for other countries with (allegedly) lower tax rates? They seem to have similar unemployment to those with the highest rates. Please expand on the examples of which countries with higher taxes (Japan? Belgium?) are doing so much worse and how those with the lowest rates (Ireland? Poland?) are doing better? Businesses go where the environment is friendly for them… and here it’s very friendly. Now I’m not saying we need to run businesses out of town with unreasonable tax increases, but a few percentage points doesn’t make for a hostile environment. It’s a beautifully sown lie that we can’t tax the corporations and the rich any more or they’ll up and leave. Seems to me we still have a flourishing population of the wealthy in the US, I didn’t know they were a protected species.
Dad.
We can talk about US states. See, for example, Texas. Or Illinois.
Tax zeros are for the bigs. See GE and Immelt, Obama’s new BFF. GE also got a $1bill solar contract. But the bigs generate very few new jobs. It’s the middlin’ folk who generate the jobs. The guys who can’t afford lobbyists or pay congressional staffers to slip loopholes into laws when nobody’s looking.
GE has been many politician’s BFF for a long time, that is hardly relevant to the discussion at hand and neither does the difference are tax rate variations amongst states, we were talking about countries. I’m not worried about a company choosing Alabama over Illinois… states with lower tax rates are still part of the United States are they not? I’d like to see the “middlin’ folk” pay less and the “bigs” pay more, so maybe we have something we can agree on there? I don’t know the number that rate needs to be, but it will certainly be less than 35% and will have to be much higher than the 5% proposition I’ve heard tossed around.
Regardless of whether we agree on the macro-economic theories, the point of my original post was that when faced with budgetary short-falls we can raise taxes or cut spending… they are both viable options and if cuts are to be made they should not be in education and social services but in defense and possibly social security. I’d be happy either way, paying more tax as an upper middlin’ kind of guy myself or cutting spending where it really matters, but this BS fat-trimming around the edges that results in decreased value of education and increased social problems is just exacerbating the problem.
“and neither does the difference are tax rate variations amongst states” (nice proofreading on my part)… that should have read “and neither are the tax rate variations amongst states”.
Dad, You can not worry about Alabama vs. Illinois. Your call. Point is, business goes where it’s less burdened. It’s a lesson. Overseas is another.
GE? Of course GE gets breaks. That they get breaks is not the point. The point is the folks who don’t.
I think you need to try out for dancing with the stars.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0327-lausd-20110327,0,5427721.story
Not even worth discussing.
I stand by “our civilization at stake.”
Of course Saddam and Qaddafi are tin pot dictators; it is the people they rule over that present the problem. Thats why the tyrants ruled with such an iron hand. A case can be made for leaving the scoundrels in power, considering the alternative.
I never said warfare was the only way of dealing with these countries. In fact we’ve been able to achieve an uneasy peace with many of the Mid East governments. But certain rogue threats involving the global oil supply and threats of terror in Europe and the US homeland necessitated more aggressive action.
Sure we’ve worked with tyrants, we work with the Japanese and Germans now, things change.
Of course there’s no oil in Afghanistan, and we we’re fully justified in attacking the Taliban. But there is an interconnectedness in the entire region from the standpoint of religious zealotry and culture which bears scrutiny.
I read the Looming Tower and know all about Bin Laden’s ties to the US. The situation changed on the ground, Ground Zero.
Of course attacking Iraq didn’t prevent anything, it was about establishing a beachhead in the region.
I stand by the Bush Doctrine “keeping us safe.” Check the record our biggest threat now is from homegrown jihad.
No, it never is black and white.
I stand by “our civilization at stake.”
Sorry, Mark. I don’t want to invoke Goodwin’s LAw here, but something tells me you’d also have been stroking your chin thoughtfully and nodding yoiur head at Nuremburg when an ex-corporal with a funny little mustache talked about the need for lebensraum.
Hanna Arendt has some choice words about the banality of evil which you should really read.
Comparing teachers to those in the military is NOT a stretch. Apparently the man who pee’d his panties over that one has NEVER walked in to a classroom. Each situation presents a risk that is not pretty. At least you are trained in how to use weapons – the kids who bring theirs to school are not – to the point they fall out of their backpacks and go off. Do not tell a teacher to F-OFF again. That is disrespectful and rude. And if you really were in the military – your superior would have your ass for that. And if you were not – your simply an ass-hat speaking out your blow hole.
Cry me a river. I haven’t had a salary increase in 3 years and get no pension. My situation is typical for people working in the private sector. The fact is that politicians have always found the path of least resistance to be to promise unsustainable pensions to powerful public employee unions. The shit has hit the fan and now California is for all practical purposes bankrupt. The money isn’t there. I’m sorry your wife might have to work until she’s 70 but I’m pretty sure I’m going to have to work until I’m 70 too.