Friday, March 11, 2011

More Advice That Won't Be Taken

It's easy to offer advice when you know it won't be heeded. But that shouldn't stop us from doing so. As we've seen from the 3-week tantrum that has taken place in Wisconsin, the entitlement mentality among unionized public sector workers seems to know no bounds. But now that the die is cast and the union reforms are on the books, the Democrats have choices to make. Mostly they are vowing revenge. Is that the right approach? I suppose it is, if you're a catharsis junkie. But in the end, I don't think it will work.

So what might work instead? Let's throw out a few suggestions:
  • Put the bongo drums away. I have talked to people about the spectacle in Madison and one unmistakable conclusion that people have made is this: there's no way that such behavior would be tolerated in the private sector. While there's some sympathy out there, it has its limits. Self-indulgence is not a pretty thing.
  • Go home. To the extent that the protestors weren't college students or hessians from Chicago and elsewhere, there was never a reason for anyone to overtake the state Capitol. No matter how well-intentioned a group of people might be, no one likes a mob.
  • Get back to work. I sense that at least some public sector workers are going to draw precisely the wrong conclusion from what happened and will use some of the classic maneuvers we see from organized labor -- you'll see people slowing down their efforts, doing less, etc. That's precisely the wrong way to influence public opinion. If public sector workers go out and demonstrate their professionalism and stop complaining about how terrible Scott Walker is, they'll have better results in building lasting support.
  • Take a look around. No matter how the news media report it, the economy is not surging right now. There are still a lot of people who are looking for work, or who have taken jobs that don't pay nearly as well as the jobs they have lost. There are a lot of people who are having to get by on less these days, even as prices on food and gasoline continue to rise. If public workers are willing to take one for the team, so to speak, they'll garner considerably more goodwill. Rightly or wrongly, at this time there's an adversarial tone to the debate. That has to end.

7 comments:

CousinDan 54915 said...

Mr. D your post is an oasis of truth is a sewage pit of bias.

Jeff Rosenberg said...

"If public workers are willing to take one for the team, so to speak, they'll garner considerably more goodwill."

They offered concessions from the very beginning. Walker turned them down.

This is not -- and never has been -- about the budget. It's about breaking the union. Walker turned them down because union concessions were never his goal.

By the way, how come the rich are never asked to "take one for the team?"

Anonymous said...

Public Worker's Unions promises are lies wrapped in rhetoric. All the while the protests were going on Madison, local unions were signing deals that did NOT include the concessions. Union leaders have proven time and time again that they can't be taken at their word, and there appears to be no effort for reform from within. Collective bargaining for public workers is a privilege not a right, granted in Wisconsin by the Legislature in 1959. If the legislature had the right to grant the privilege, the also have the right to rescind it.

If the Unions (and WEAC the State Teacher's Union with their WEAC Trust hadn't abused the system) it woudn't have had to come to this. How can they honesty say that their behavior has provided the public with any belief that they can be trusted? Actions speak louder than words and a review of their actions is condemning.

Mr. D said...

Good to hear from you, Jeff.

They offered concessions from the very beginning. Walker turned them down.

This is not -- and never has been -- about the budget. It's about breaking the union. Walker turned them down because union concessions were never his goal.


No, I think concessions were a goal, but curbing (not breaking) the power of the unions is key to ensuring that the changes are lasting. Unless you change the law, the unions will grab back everything they can as soon as they can.

By the way, how come the rich are never asked to "take one for the team?"

Depends on who you define as rich, Jeff. We tax small business people and corporate executives significantly more aggressively than we tax trust fund babies.

As a result of this system, it also depends on whether you want to tax current income or find a way to grab accumulated wealth.

It also depends on whether or not you define the government as "the team," or the citizenry itself.

We have to answer those questions before we can ask how we "ask" the rich to take one for the team, doncha think?

Jeff Rosenberg said...

I agree that our current tax system penalizes hard work and rewards wealth. That's a mistake. I believe we should increase capital gains taxes -- possibly with some sort of mechanism to protect retirement funds and the like -- and also properly reinstate the inheritance tax (aka estate tax).

I don't believe taxes on the rich are the same as taxes on small businesses. While I understand all about S-corporations, let's remember that taxes on S-corporations are on pass-through profits, after any and all business expenses, including wages.

Finally, I can't see how the distinction between the "team" as government vs the "team" as citizenry would ever change the morality of asking workers to make concessions while we ask the rich for nothing.

Mr. D said...

I can't see how the distinction between the "team" as government vs the "team" as citizenry would ever change the morality of asking workers to make concessions while we ask the rich for nothing.

Well, if it were true that we ask the rich for nothing, you'd be right. But we don't. As it happens, the "rich" pay a lot. And the distinction is this: there's a pretty huge disconnect between the prerogatives of the citizenry and the prerogatives of the government.

And what I'm asking, always asking, is this: just because a government wants to do something, ought it? And are we convinced that the things government bids fair to do are sufficiently important to drain the wallets of the citizenry? You and I disagree on such things, Jeff.

As for the estate tax -- good luck with that one. In a world where capital can move anywhere, governments don't have a lot of options. Governor Mark Dayton can't touch trust fund baby Mark Dayton's money. Although the estate tax is an excellent way to increase the government's agricultural land holdings, I suppose. ;)

Brad Carlson said...

In these economic times, it's more nonsensical than ever to disproportionately rely on revenue from taxing "the rich." The reason being is highly paid professionals have been amongst the hardest hit when it comes to layoffs.

At a townhall meeting recently, my state Senator threw down a challenge to constituents who were perpetuating the vapid "tax the rich" screed. He basically told them to sit in on a committee meeting with him for one day. After that, if those guys are 100% convinced that government is spending money properly and/or efficiently, Sen. Jungbauer would seriously entertain proposals to increasing taxes.

I'm sure we all know what would be the outcome of that little exercise.