Bullying is something that practically everyone has experienced at some point in their lifetime. It might have been the elementary school blustering bully who was more sound and fury, but like the character in The Christmas Story ran from the first kid who stood up to him. It might have the been the High School bully who had created an image for his underlings which he tried desperately to maintain by striking out at anyone he believed was weaker. Or it might have been a workplace bully, who manipulated through intimidation and fear for your job. It is a flaw in human nature that civil society demands and must control for the safety and liberty of every citizen, young or old.
Recently articles have been written showing how schools are now starting up programs to fight Schoolyard Bullying, as in an article on the Patch
Talk of bullying often conjures up an image of a big kid—with lackeys in tow—pushing over a smaller kid on the playground while yelling something mean, but the word encompasses a much broader group of hurtful actions, said Cheryl Greene, a bullying prevention specialist working with School District 622.
“Bullying causes severe suffering and harm to the children, who are its victims; and we must do more to stop it. Children and parents in Minnesota should have confidence that their schools are safe places for learning and are free of harm or intimidation. The work of this Task Force is critical to ensuring that a healthy and nurturing school environment exists for every child in our state,” said Governor Dayton.
Bullying and its prevention is completely about character. The bully is an example of undeniably poor character, an example that can only be changed by development of moral character. Moral development cannot be instilled in children if we do not practise it ourselves. This was one of the few things in the public discussion a few years ago about “It Takes A Village” that was universally agreed to.
In his book, The Moral Lives of Children, Dr. Robert Coles defines our conscience as our "moral intelligence." More simply, he defines moral intelligence as how we behave—"moral behavior tested by life, lived out in the course of our everyday existence."
PBS NewsHour's David Gergen interviewed Coles several years ago and asked him how to encourage morality in our students, our children, and ourselves. Coles told Gergen that adults can only teach values by living them. "I'm trying insist upon for myself as a parent and a teacher and for all of us, that any lesson offered a child in an abstract manner that isn't backed up by deed is not going to work very well," Coles said. "We live out what we presumably want taught to our children. And our children are taking constant notice, and they're measuring us not by what we say but what we do."
With the recognition and urgency of how we want to protect children in our school system and our society, why does it seem so foreign in our political discourse? If we practice bullying of those who we do not agree with ideologically, are we not setting an example of acceptance for bullying? It can be as simple as continual ridicule of others, as purported by Alinsky’s Rule Number 5 in his Rules for Radicals
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
or in his Rule 11, on personal destruction
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
However the inescapable result of following such recommendations is what we see in the the plight of a teacher in Wisconsin. She voiced her conscience and courageously acted on it, but has received a avalanche of bullying in return.
We suppose that’s not terribly surprising for a group that has to force its members to join.
Still, it’s troubling to hear that Kristi LaCroix, the courageous public school teacher who had the guts to film a television ad supporting Gov. Scott Walker’s reforms, is being harassed by union zealots to the point where she wants to change careers.
LaCroix, who teaches at Lakeview Technology Academy in the Kenosha school district, recently posted the following on her Facebook page, according a news story from WISN 1130:
“Going through and deleting my daily amount of hate mail that is sent to my work email. I have now been assured, by one of the emails (all of which I forward to my Principal) that there is an online movement called ‘Fire Kristi‘ where they are going to email, post and talk to everyone (telling) millions of stories to ruin my reputation, career and life.
So when the kids see this example played out before them, does it teach them that bullying is wrong and not to be tolerated? Or does it guarantee defeat for the goals of creating an effective anti-bullying culture in schools. We have a broader mission than what a task force will address to correct the “do as I say not as I do” method of moral lessons.
This is not an anti-union rally, this is a child care freedom rally!
Do we need a Union to change our rates? No
Do we need a union to have a voice at the table? No
Do we need a Union to tells us which kids we can a cannot take? No
We are independent self employed small business owners.
While Union membership may be voluntary, union representation most certainly is not. Any changes that the union makes with the department of Health and Human Services will affect all providers.
Only a majority of the ballots cast will count int he vote So not voting is essentially a vote for Unionization. We need every provider that can vote to vote.
If you are eligible to vote you should be receiving a ballot around Dec 7, and they will be due Dec 21. We are asking providers to send it in by Dec 16th, and send it via the post office via registered mail, so it doesn’t get “lost” in the mail, and so its there on time.
Becky Swanson
I am here today because I am living my American dream! I am a small business owner, and I run a childcare.
We have no idea what is in that contract!
Legislators
Rep. Keith Downy
You folks are the absolute core of private enterprise in this state and in this Country.
In Michigan under this very same apparatus, $3.7 million dollars every year gets routed from Childcare subsidies away from parents, away from providers directly to the Unions.
Here is my commitment to you, that I will personally challenge Governor Dayton to hold a special session this fall so that all these unanswered questions about whether he has the authority or the bureau of mediation services has the authority to even conduct this election....If he’s willing to call for a special session to ask you folks to pay for a new stadium for another of his one percenter friends, he should be willing to have a special session to deal with your issues. And if he refuses that, I will publicly ask his to hold an American election,an American vote, not a North Korean vote on unionization!
Rep Mary Franson, also a former Child Care provider (at 22:48 in the video)
Providers are being silenced, their [union organizers] freedom of speech is what they think freedom of speech is - censorship! And I don’t think the Unions are practising very much kindness out there.
One union person at the Senate hearing had the audacity to say we were having hearings on this issue because we were discriminating against women. Let me tell you, this is nothing about discrimination. As women, we do not need a Union telling us how to run our business because we are smart enough, we are empowered enough and we can do this without “one voice”.
They [the Unions] have been going door to door and if you are a no vote they are harassing and they are showing up at your door a couple of times a week wanting you to vote yes. One person told me that the Union said, well if you vote no and if the union vote fails you will no longer be eligible to take CCAP children any more.
If you are eligible to vote, because its “a democratic election you know”, some of you are eligible. Make sure you mark that box NO and mail it in. Because like you heard before if you do not vote and you do not mail anything in, it is a yes vote.
[excluding a list of several other legislators who are or who have spouses who are day care providers] There are people down here who know your business inside and out. So don’t let the Union tell you there is nobody down here working for you. Because, indeed we are!
Rep Kurt Bills
Kim Crockett
Rep Kelby Woodard
Mary Franson’s speech was a very compelling personal testimony of her 4 years as a child care provider, and how in 2005 she experienced the first wave of attempted Unionization. One I would strongly suggest listening to She describes how AFSCME Council 5 organizers came at a time of the day when she and her neighbor who was also a provider were very busy, surrounded by children, and stayed until they signed the cards. Day care providers by law cannot let any child out of their sight. So you really cannot divide your attention to spend reading the literature and the cards when they come.
[Sorry the rotunda has very low light, so the video quality is poor] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FK1fJ-9kKA
11/22/11 Childcare providers who oppose unionization expressed concern over the fairness of the process and the potential for undue union influence in carrying out the election.
While the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) will oversee the election, Dayton’s executive order allows the state to in effect outsource the job to an outside group paid for by the unions. The Minneapolis regional office of a company that has conducted several childcare union elections in other states will administer the election.
Look True North has a short video of some Childcare providers putting forth their case against unionizing their small businesses.
A hearing was held at the Minnesota Senate
In this video the providers arguing against the forced unionization of their private business describe the many devious actions that agents of the “Kids First” Unions took in trying to get them to sign the union cards. They have been trying to protect their business from continuing Unionization efforts since 2005.
The Unions talked about how “legal standing” differentiates them from the existing Childcare Associations that currently represent the providers. But who is the “employer” that is part of the collective bargaining that this legal standing affects? The Union rep dissembles and uses rigid repetition of the same phrases, never answering the questions, just repeating “providers have the right to form a Union”. Apparently, even if they don’t want one, or know any of the particulars of the implementation.
On September 20th, 2011, two Senate committees held a joint hearing on Union efforts to compel independent in-home childcare providers to unionize. Union organizers couldn't answer basic questions about their objectives and childcare providers described deceptive and intimidating tactics employed by some union organizers. The hearing shed a lot of light on the situation. Here are some of the more revealing moments.
The question of whether Gov Mark Dayton has the authority to actually force this vote is the subject of a lawsuit announced last week. A hearing for a temporary restraining order in the case is scheduled for Monday morning in Ramsey County District Court.
The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration voted today to file a "friend of the court" brief in support of a lawsuit seeking to stop an upcoming unionization election for in-home child-care providers.
So the battle to keep private enterprise private is now in the hands of the court and possibly the 4230 of 11,000 daycare providers that may ultimately vote on the issue.
Recent moves by Governor Dayton, and the Unions to whom he owes many campaign debts, to force a vote on independent daycare unionization have been met with many complaints from the people they claim to want to help. Including a recent lawsuit contesting his authority to force such a vote by executive order.
But what problem is this trying to address? Is there a problem with regulations or licensing? Are there unfair practices from the management? That imply a duality of worker/owner being unfair to themselves, which seems an unlikely case.
Despite the objections raised, Governor Mark Dayton has forged ahead with plans that seem designed to help Unions get their Yes vote, while (or by) simultaneously disenfranchising as many individuals as possible.
11/11/2011 Licensed Family Child Care Providers met with Governor Dayton Thursday night, November 10, to express their opposition to the unionization of their businesses.
Governor Dayton informed providers that he is moving in the direction of signing an Executive Order establishing a vote including only Licensed Family Child Care Providers who are currently providing services to families on the child care assistance program (CCAP). This would make the overwhelming majority of licensed providers ineligible to vote. His intention is that union membership would be voluntary and the unions would only involve those licensed providers serving families who receive subsidies from the child care assistance program. It was indicated that this would be a small starting point and could be expanded in the future.
In a leaked email memo, distributed to DFL members of the Minnesota House, obtained by the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, and featured in a 5 Eyewitness News investigation, it was revealed that the “voluntary” would not be that voluntary. It acknowledges the possibility/probabilty of forcing non-union members to pay fair-share fees, most of the “dues” with none of the voting privileges. Further significant issues that Governor Dayton and the Unions have decided to either ignore or violate on the path to forcing this election, have been raised in studies at the Capital.
11/02/2011 A new Capitol study raises serious legal questions.
The House research study questions whether it is legal to unionize 11,000 daycare workers across Minnesota. Home daycare providers are considered independent contractors. The study says federal law specifically excludes independent contractors from forming a union.
…
The study also indicates taxes might have to be raised to cover any increases in state subsidies to daycare providers if there is a union, which then could bargain with the state for more taxpayer subsidies.
The Issue: Family child care providers are being organized in an increasing number of states by several national unions that want to represent providers in collective bargaining with the state agencies regulating child care and funding child care subsidy programs. Because family child care providers do not fit any existing union workforce models, a new model must be established.
So this represents a radical change in workforce unions (as the leaked memo also states). The people who operate daycare centers are private independent contractors. They do not work for the state, nor for a corporation. There is no “employer” for the union operatives to “negotiate” with for arbitration, and no particular need for such negotiation. The private contractor discusses the work with a potential client, and has the right and authority to make the decision to accept or reject the work. Will that even be the same under a Union? Would they have the option to not take a client? Daycare providers have said that Union workers, trying to get cards signed by the daycare workers, have employed devious methods to get signatures to use to support unionization.
November 25, 2011 On Monday night, about a dozen day care providers in Becker County met to discuss what the vote could mean for them.
“What it comes down to, he had no right to do this and he did,” Jane Young, of Frazee, said of Dayton.
Providers say that those trying to organize the union have been “underhanded” in showing up at lunchtime at their daycares and not identifying who they are. Instead, they ask providers to sign a card, asking for more information. But, they believe it was actually a way to get signatures saying they supported joining a union.
One new twist being added to this year’s vote — the issue also went to a vote and failed in 2006 — is that only those day cares receiving state subsidies can vote on becoming unionized.
That means only about 4,000 of the 11,000 daycare providers will receive the mail-in ballots.
Provider Terrie Boyd, of Detroit Lakes, said that whether or not a daycare has families that are subsidized is “always fluid though” because a family might use assistance, but then they leave and there are no assisted families at that provider.
And, the providers pointed out, it’s the families being subsidized, not the daycare providers.
Regardless, next month, those 4,287 providers with a vote will vote yes or no on a union. Membership will be voluntary if providers approve the unionization.
Some Becker County providers are saying the vote is highly unfair and that the state and unions are limiting the number of voters in order to pass the vote in favor of unionization.
Monday, 21 Nov 2011 "I am one of more than half the child care providers in Minnesota who do not get a vote, but the union seat at the table with DHS to discuss things like license regulations, rating system training, payment rates, et cetetera, will -- in turn -- affect the same rules that govern my private business," said Dina Spurgin.
Cyndi Cunningham, another home day care provider, said the political banter around the issue is angering her.
"With all due respect, this is our business. This is our livelihood," she said.
So what are the motivations for trying to unionize a group of businesses and people so dissimilar from the normal union membership? CBS offered one partial suggestion.
Nov 16, 2011 Only 5300 of Minnesota’s 11,000 private in-home providers get public subsidies, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Subsidies which are widely different based on a parent’s income and county.
Privately funded day care providers and parents are not affected.
IN FACT…
The families of nearly 34,000 children get low-income subsidies in Minnesota, averaging about $900 a month. One purpose of a union is to pressure the state from cutting that money.
The leaked memo offers others and admits it might be more about Union plans to expand membership, rather than any real labor workplace concerns.
There is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding regarding this issue. Much of this stems from the fact that what AFSCME and SEIU are pushing for is very different from the traditional employee union-collective bargaining scenario. Child care providers do not fit in to the traditional union model, which, by definition includes employees, employers, and a collective bargaining agreement.
… Further the contract that AFSCME and SEIU would like to forge would not address wages and benefits like a traditional bargaining agreement.
...
A concern over declining union membership and the need to target a new segment of the private sector workforce—independent contractors—also surfaces as a concern. “Representatives from AFSCME and SEIU emphasize that organizing independent contractors for collective bargaining may become commonplace in the future. With the decline of the traditional union workplace, a union of independent contractors might become a new kind of organizing for a new economy.”
It also states:
Proponents of the unionization effort have not identified any specific regulations that they find unduly burdensome an would like to change.
Proponents of a child care provider union have repeatedly said that a union would not attempt to influence the rates child care providers charge their parent-customers.
The memo further raises the possibility of compensating labor unions directly with state funding intended to subsidize low-income childcare
Which really leaves unanswered the question of what benefit any unionization would provide. Child care independent contractors already have an advocacy association that they can freely join, Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association. There are no "benefits" listed that are not already present. It would seem the major benefits are to the dwindling rolls of the unions and boosting their flagging influence. A benefit that does not translate well to the independent contractor day care providers or their parent clients. As the only goal they provide in the letter, the taxpayers will be certain of being required to increase taxes for more subsidy payments to the low income clients. With a significant potential revenue for the Unions, and significant increases in parents costs. As in other states, that have unionized child care, have experienced an average 35% increased cost. So if you are one of the few childcare workers who are able to vote, make sure you know what you are entering into. And know that abstaining is a Yes vote.
My wife and I had a small exchange, as I was trying to thaw the turkey this Thanksgiving morning. I had emphatically asked ( well, told, but that never works as everyone knows) my wife to get a small turkey, as I weary of leftovers over the next few weeks. So of course that meant she got the largest turkey we have ever had. Its part of human nature to rebel against what you are being “told” to do. It struck me as a possible explanation for the Maplewood City Council resistance to citizen outcry over the garbage hauling issue.
If the recent election is to be considered a referendum on that, as the primary issue, it was a very clear statement that more than a few people are upset and do not want the single hauler plan.
Candidate
Votes
Pct
Bob Cardinal
3071
30%
Marvin C. Koppen (I)
2704
26%
Rebecca Cave
2469
24%
John Nephew (I)
1981
19%
That Mr Nephew, widely regarded as one of, if not the primary, architect of the plan, fell so far out of the lead should send a clarion call for reconsideration. A call made even more emphatic when you consider that the other incumbent Marv Koppen has voiced opposition to the plan as well. Thus 81% of the vote went to candidates that were considered votes against the issue.
However the voters reaction may be against more than just the garbage issue, as the interchange between Rebecca Cave and John Nephew brought out.
Rebecca Cave: I am kind of appalled at the sitting City Council and the Mayor, that they don’t even listen to the citizens. There are 1500 cards that came through, that were asking not to do this. They didn’t look at one of them. I was there and I watched on TV from all the people, the trash haulers and the [home] owners that got up to speak. They were shutdown by our Mayor. And its really sad to see that our city’s turned out like this.
John Nephew: I think its worth reminding that there are about 38000 residents for the city of Maplewood, and 1500 don’t decide what’s best for it.
The strongly perceived implication was that John Nephew and the other City Council members do decide, and they know better than the 1500 citizens. That retort, reveals a hubris that may also have played a role in the election results. One might also want to consider that 1500 represents more than 10% of the 12,000 households of Maplewood taking the time to respond, when they have clear indication that the Maplewood City Council is not listening. If a company received even 2% product complaints, they would know they have a very serious problem.
Later in the forum a member of a Union got up and asked again:
"We have roughly 12,000 households in the city, we received 1,500 cards back on the garbage issue, that's a substantial number of people that responded ... do you believe that's a large enough number of people who deserve to have their voices heard?"
Mr. Nephew’s response (at 89:50 in the full video) was:
An answer to the basic question, which suggests if enough people come forward and yell about something we should give them what they want? The answer is absolutely not!
Mr Nephew also stated that he did look at the cards and sent emails to all that had added an email address. He also claimed, or implied, that many non-Maplewood residents had responded, and that many had responded positively. An argument that Bob Cardinal refutes in earlier comments. A citizen who reviewed all the cards reported that he believes there were only 25 positive (wanted single hauler), indifferent, or non-resident cards out of the 1500.
This issue comes to a vote at the November 28th 7pm City Council meeting. Mr Nephew will participate in that vote. Maplewood residents may want to attempt to still have their voice heard. However as the Pioneer Press article reports, it may not be listened to:
11/15/2011 A motion by council member Marvin Koppen at Monday's meeting asked the panel to delay its final vote on adopting an organized hauling system until the new council is seated. But his colleagues didn't bite. That means single-provider trash service may be the wave of the future in the community.
"It's frustrating," Koppen said. "It's clear from the (Nov. 8) election what the people want, but it seemed pretty obvious last night (the other council members) aren't going to change their minds on this."
There may be some who ask, why is this issue important? You can also buy a $5 Rolex from the back of a pickup, but its not the right thing to do. Not everything comes down to a simple matter of price. Preserving your rights and liberty to choose cannot have a price. Taking away and chipping at liberty becomes a habit that a government will find hard to break, and a citizenry hard to stop.
If the Maplewood City Council acted with wisdom, they would consider that they are members of a representative government. As such they have a responsibility to listen to the will of the people and to respect it and to vote accordingly. So when they vote through the mandate for single hauler trash collection, remember that, the next time you have an opportunity to vote on their continued service to you!
From her prepared remarks at a recent townhall, Betty started with
“These are common-sense initiatives that have received bi-partisan support in the past. Congress should pass this bill right away.”
I believe that she added to her prepared remarks a comment here about a “do nothing congress”, a theme to be repeated later in the question and answer portion of the townhall with
“the white house announced three initiatives that do not need to slug through congress, in other words the president can just, he doesn’t have to wait for congress to do its job, cause, we’re not seeing a lot of action right now up on the hill, I wish were seeing a lot more, I’m ready to do a lot more , but, the three initiatives..”
Obama seems to have given up on working with them [Congress] and pivoted to Harry Truman’s tried-and-true strategy of blaming Congress for not doing anything at all.
Rhetorically, at least, the strategy is working. The president’s poll numbers have stabilized from their free fall and rebounded to the mid-40s, while Congress clocked in this month with an awful-even-for-these-guys 9 percent approval rating.
Truman’s situation was very similar to today's, with the addition that both houses had slim Republican majorities elected, for the only time in 1928 to 1953. Despite the attempt to label it as "do nothing" that Congress tried to get things done, but could only do it over the President's veto.
“In November 1946, the Democrats suffered a severe defeat in the congressional elections. The result was the 80th Congress, the first Republican-controlled Congress in 16 years. Bent on dismantling the New Deal, the 80th Congress moved to limit the power of labor, lower taxes, and ride their successes on to victory in the 1948 presidential election. Not surprisingly, Truman clashed with the 80th Congress over a number of issues, but the most important was Congress’s attempt to regulate and restrict organized labor. Truman vetoed the controversial 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which banned the closed shop and restricted the power of organized labor in a number of other ways. The bill was passed over Truman’s veto, but his actions increased his standing with organized labor. Twice in 1947, the 80th Congress passed tax cuts only to watch Truman veto them with the claim that they favored the wealthy. In 1948 a third tax cut bill was passed over Truman’s veto.”
Staggering similarity. So how accurate is the “do nothing label” now? Well in the case of the for the 112th Congress, Betty McCollum can only be referring to Harry Reid’s blocking of bills being presented and voted on in the Senate, starting with the Presidents Jobs Bill.
“What I am trying to do here today by requesting this vote on the president’s jobs bill ... is to honor the request of the president of the United States that we vote on it now,” McConnell said. “He has been asking us repeatedly over the last few weeks that we vote on it now.”
“I think the president of the United States, whose polices I generally do not support ... is entitled to know where the Senate stands on his proposal that he has been out talking about ... and suggesting that we are unwilling to vote on it," he said.
The Obama campaign sent out an email today asking supporters to urge Congress to at least vote on the president’s jobs bill almost immediately after Democratic majority leader Harry Reid blocked a vote on the bill in the Senate.
President Obama and Harry Reid seem to have crossed wires on that one, but it doesn’t seem to stop them from persistently blaming the Republicans for that and everything else as well.
As NewsBusters observed last month, the media, possibly with marching papers from the White House, have regularly been blaming all that ails the nation on "The Republican Congress" despite the fact Democrats control the Senate.
On ABC's This Week Sunday, George Will marvelously noted, "While [Barack Obama] was lecturing in Constitutional law, he missed that part of the Article I that says there’s a Senate also"
With polls showing the country's view of Congress at dismally low levels, Democrats and the White House believe they have to convince the public the GOP is responsible, and are therefore employing this tremendously disgraceful strategy.
But as Dick Durbin stated, they cannot even get their Democrat majority to vote for the Jobs Bill.
Durbin said. “There are some senators who are up for election who say ‘I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people.’ So, we’re not gonna have 100 percent of Democratic senators.
However that is only the tip of the iceberg of Senate Democrat majority blocked legislation.
Senate sitting on 290 bills already passed by House; tension mounts
By J. Taylor Rushing - 02/23/10 06:00 AM ET Exasperated House Democratic leaders have compiled a list showing that they have passed 290 bills that have stalled in the Senate.
The list is the latest sign that Democrats in the lower chamber are frustrated with their Senate counterparts.
Nov 3, 2011 Washington- Today, Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) and Congressman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) released the following joint-column discussing the bipartisan “Forgotten 15” jobs bills passed by the House that are stuck in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The "Forgotten 15" includes the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 872), a jobs bill authored by Rep. Gibbs that would stop the federal government from needlessly imposing costly and duplicative permitting requirements for pesticide use near waterways:
Here is a list of 15 jobs growth bills languishing at the doorstep of the Senate
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have continuously blamed Republicans for blocking jobs bills. But this is simply not the case. The Republican-led House has passed more than 15 bills that will spur job growth while the Democratic-led Senate has failed to act.
Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) today released a list of 132 American economists who believe the job creation strategy used in the House GOP Plan for America’s Job Creators will do more to boost private-sector job growth in America in both the near-term and long-term than the “stimulus” spending approach favored by President Obama.
Oct 12, 2011: In a 418-6 vote, the House stands behinds veterans.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. House of Representatives passed six pieces of veteran legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support this week (H.R. 2433, as amended; H.R. 2074, as amended; H.R. 2302, as amended; H.R. 2349, as amended; H.R. 1263, as amended; and H.R. 1025).
“The House of Representatives sent a clear message that not only is support for our veterans strong, but that we stand together to end veteran unemployment,” stated Rep. Jeff Miller (FL-01), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. “The VOW Act is the most comprehensive, thoughtful legislation that has been introduced to get our veterans out of unemployment lines and into meaningful jobs. We must also get government out of the way and ensure we have the right environment for the job market to flourish once again for all Americans.”
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest unemployment figures, and while the national unemployment rate held steady, there was an alarming rise in the veteran unemployment rate – from 7.7% to 8.1% nationwide.
Thankfully it appears that some Veterans legislation may be making its way through Congress at this point
Nov 16, 2011 Congressional Democrats and Republicans rallied on a rare patch of common ground Wednesday, moving to pass a bill helping unemployed veterans and government contractors.
The liberal punditry loves to bash the Republicans for, well, just about anything, including the odious tactic of saying they want hurt the economy to hurt Obama. In particular they claim:
In the deliberations of the "Super Committee," Republicans have been completely unwilling to give on the fundamental question of whether millionaires should be asked to pay to put America's economic house in order.
Well this belies the fact that as Rand Paul has stated, the Democrats basically abandoned the “Super Committee” after Republicans had made a substantive offer yielding on that exact point.
Sean Hannity Interviews Rand Paul On Democrats Walking Away From Super Committee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77MWuycd6Aw
November 6th, 2011 George Will claimed that if President Obama should be hoping that the Congressional supercommittee convened to come up with a bipartisan plan to balance the budget and deal with high unemployment will fail, because he can’t run against a do-nothing Congress in 2012 if the public sees Congress is actually doing something.
Congressional Republicans have for the first time retreated from their hard-line stance against new taxes, offering to raise federal tax collections by nearly $300 billion over the next decade as part of a plan to tame the national debt.
But Democrats rejected the offer Tuesday — along with the notion that Republicans had made a significant concession that could end the long-standing political impasse — leaving a special debt-reduction committee far from compromise with less than two weeks until its Thanksgiving deadline.
later in the article the author says:
Other Democrats challenged the notion that Republicans had made any major concessions. Lowering the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent would eat up most of the extra revenue generated by limiting itemized deductions, they said, leaving very little savings to reduce future borrowing.
Which basically leads to the main conservative point, stop the spending, stop the borrowing. So while Betty McCollum’s charge that the Congress, in the sense of the Senate, isn’t doing much is not wholly inaccurate, the implication that its Republicans is. It would be interesting to see Betty McCollum not follow ardently in the path laid out by Obama and Pelosi, and state that the blockage is due to her fellow Democrats. She claims she want to do more, but her statements (in video) of solidarity with Obama to bypass the Constitutional path, imply that it is more political attack than creation of accomplishments.
A Forum for the Maplewood City Council Candidates was held Thurday Nov 3 at the Maplewood library. As a non-partisan event, it was attended by approximately 20 people at the event, and 12 to 18 viewing the Ustream online during the forum, making it one of the best attended forums for local Maplewood elections.
The evening was moderated by Eric Ekstrand, chair of BPOU 55A, who took on the very difficult task of maintaining the structure of the debate, and eliciting questions from the citizens in a form that could be answered equally by all candidates. The audience questions came directly from the citizens attending, including current Mayor Will Rossbach and former Mayor Diane Longrie, a local fireman and union members.
Following a format from one of the recent Presidential Primary Debates, that leads to more interaction, the candidates were given 1 minute to speak to the question, and 30 seconds to rebut if they felt they were directly addressed in the statements. An option that the candidates, John Nephew, Rebecca Cave, and Bob Cardinal took full advantage of in the lively 99 minute forum. Candidate Marv Koppen did not attend.
The most intense questioning of the night predictably was related to the current, and sensitive, topic of single hauler garbage collection. A sampling of other questions asked were: "what will be your two main objectives you want to accomplish", "each of you have been on the city council...could you each speak to the levy increases that occurred during your term on the council and your thought process why they were necessary", and related to the fire station closings "are you as city council members willing to think outside the box".
One of the best questions, related to the single hauler garbage issue, came from a citizen who is also a member of a union, as the last question of the night. "We have roughly 12,000 households in the city, we received 1,500 cards back on the garbage issue, that's a substantial number of people that responded ... do you believe that's a large enough number of people who deserve to have their voices heard"? I considered it one of the best because it was reflective of the many studies that have shown that in product complaint systems the number of people who directly complain about a product is very small, typically less than 2-10% of those who do experience/have a product problem, but is a very important indicator. Much like the tip of an iceberg, the mass below the surface is many times larger that what is above the water.
The elections are Tuesday Nov 8. For those readers in the Maplewood area, this forum is one of the best/only ways to see your candidates discussing the issues. To see the candidates answers to these questions and many others, watch the forum and form your own conclusions as you exercise your right to vote on Tuesday.
At a recent town hall on Jobs, Betty McCollum made a presentation showing yet another “tricky” chart. This was a creation from the office of Nancy Pelosi that has become a favorite for attempting to portray the Obama administration as having successfully handled jobs and the economy. But does it reflect where we really are for jobs?
First lets look at reproducing the chart from public data at the Bureau of Labor Statistics(http://www.bls.gov/cps/). The information, and the charts included below (titles added, when obtained from the BLS site it is comes across as a table of data with a crude chart), come from the BLS website, and go back a little further to look at some more historical context in the Clinton and Bush years. This will look at the dot com bubble, the 9/11 strike, and the home mortgage bubble bursts, and the recovery aftermath.
Table 1 includes the spike for the census temporary work hiring in early 2010.
The trickiness involved is that this represents a differential change (first derivative, for those who remember calculus) chart. In addition Betty McCollum’s (Pelosi/Obama) chart is also somewhat smoothed to try to try to make the impact stronger. So to get the correct understanding of what the unemployment situation is we need to do an accumulated sum (integration) of the data. Or we can simply request the real unemployment data from BLS. The chosen statistic was the monthly change in the number of employed persons, so the corresponding chart will be the number of unemployed persons.
This chart 2, above, is unadjusted for population growth and thus has an intrinsic increase built in. Though for relatively short periods you can make reasonable comparisons. So we will switch to looking at the unemployment percentage/rate to normalize for population. The major two peaks that stand out are the Carter and the Obama years.
Looking at the more recent times, we can see that the unemployment rate has leveled off, isn’t getting any worse, as Betty McCollum’s tricky chart shows. But, we still are at historically high levels of unemployment, which her tricky chart belies.
So what does this all mean for trying to assess the current state of recovery?
The analysis at this site http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/how-many-jobs-are-needed-over-next-year.html shows that we need to have a job growth rate per month, under different scenarios, of between 224000 to 391,000 to lower the unemployment rate to a still objectionable 8.2% in a year. Unfortunately a far cry from our current levels shown in Betty McCollum’s chart. It is further complicated by the participation rate, those who are still trying to find work or are employed, vs those who have given up looking for now. The methods for reporting unemployment numbers were changed during the Carter administration, and probably tweaked a little in every administration since. So the “real” unemployment is much higher when we include these other “categories” of people who want to be employed, but are discouraged.
1/7/2011 Assuming a reversion to the mean in the long-term average participation rate back to 66%, means that the civilian labor force, which in December came at 153,690, a drop of 260,000 from November, is in reality 157.6 million, a delta of 3.91 million currently unaccounted for.
Business Insider Jan 7, 2011,The participation rate has fallen sharply from 66% at the start of the recession to 64.3% in December [2010]. That is almost 4 million workers who are no longer in the labor force and not counted as unemployed in U-3, although most are included as "discouraged workers" or "Marginally Attached to Labor Force" in U-6.
A decline in the unemployment rate mostly due to a decline in the participation rate is not good employment news.
So how does unemployment in this recession compare to others in the modern era (last 64 years)? The following chart tracks unemployment from the last date of the maximum employment, typically cited as the “start” of the recession. http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html#category=Employment&chart=EmployPopDec2010.jpg
There are many factors that affect the depth of the unemployment and the length of time to restore employment levels. The one major category that is within our national control are the governmental policies put in place. Are they beneficial to the economy or are they a drag ending up prolonging the period before “full” recovery can occur.
Footnote:
I found the Political Math Blog in the final stage of writing this article. He emphasizes the techniques to create a misleading chart and how he created the somewhat equally misleading chart above as part of his critique of the McCollum/Pelosi/Obama chart. I included it as a “tongue in cheek” addition to emphasize the point that misleading the American people, from either ideological point, does not help to resolve the very real problems that we face. And is a disservice to us all. Both charts are accurate values, just misleading in conclusions. http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=383
Both charts use jobs data taken from the same place, displayed the same way, stripped of context and used to push an ideological point using an implicit "correlation mean causation" line of argumentation.
