Fuck its silent in here.......

[Gilgamesh]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

You restrict what governments have the ability to offer any group. In the case of collective bargaining with elected officials, there is a bit of a conflict of interest in the negotiation, no?

Simply put, every worker in the world should have one thing in mind when negotiating compensation, be it individually or collectively: How can I maximize my compensation for the minimal amount of output required? That's the goal of every union. (If it's not the goal, the union bosses should be savagely attacked by their members.)  Management should be interested in getting the maximum (both in quantity and quality) production for minimal compensation. How each side values its tradeoffs is one thing, but when management decides leaving money on the table isn't so bad, the union is going to win the negotiations going away.

So how do you limit the influence of corporate donors?

One recognizes that money does not equal speech and go from there.

[Wheezer]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

By selling public assets to them in a no-bid process, of course.

[morpheus]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

Garbage.  The data is over 10 years old; if you compile it for the most recent school year - 2010 - there is no pattern.  Even if the pattern did hold over time, which it doesn't, there are much more important factors determining ACT/SAT scores, such as socio-economic background and simply the rate of test-taking.  If more people take the test (as a percentage of the total school population cohort) then the scores go lower.

Heck, ACT and SAT the College Board both caution against comparing scores by state because the comparisons are so faulty.  And, the post that the Economist linked to has since been amended to say the study is crap.

EDIT: I forgot that the SAT is not eponymously named.

[fiveouts]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

Garbage.  The data is over 10 years old; if you compile it for the most recent school year - 2010 - there is no pattern.  Even if the pattern did hold over time, which it doesn't, there are much more important factors determining ACT/SAT scores, such as socio-economic background and simply the rate of test-taking.  If more people take the test (as a percentage of the total school population cohort) then the scores go lower.

Heck, ACT and SAT the College Board both caution against comparing scores by state because the comparisons are so faulty.  And, the post that the Economist linked to has since been amended to say the study is crap.

EDIT: I forgot that the SAT is not eponymously named.

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

[Chuck to Chuck]

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

By selling public assets to them in a no-bid process, of course.

I laughed because it's so sadly true.

[morpheus]

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

THIS.

[R-V]

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

THIS.

All those single parents should gay marry.

[Bort]

I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

THIS.

Correlation, causation... It's all good!

[Chuck to Chuck]

I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

[Brownie]

I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

[R-V]

I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

So what do we do about those no-bid contracts?

[Brownie]

I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

So what do we do about those no-bid contracts?

You try and eliminate them.

[R-V]

I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

So what do we do about those no-bid contracts?

You try and eliminate them.

So it's agreed then. Public financing of elections, since that's the only way to truly remove the incentive politicians have to serve special interests.