by | ARTICLES, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, TAXES
Catching up on articles over at the WSJ, I came across this gem last month from Barbara Martinez. It describes how the teachers unions in NY are suing again to stop the closure of failing schools. This article illustrates the power of the teachers unions and the powerlessness of the taxpayers, who continue to subsidize failure and are asked to continue to shoulder the burden of educational costs. The article is reposted below.
The fate of tens of thousands of students was thrown into question Wednesday after the United Federation of Teachers and the NAACP sued to block the city’s plans to shut down 22 failing schools, a move that threatened to derail a major Bloomberg education initiative for a second year in a row.
The lawsuit echoes another the UFT filed last year that successfully halted the administration’s plans to close 19 schools. Two courts sided with the UFT last year. The lawsuit goes to the heart of a national philosophical divide about failing schools. In general, teachers unions believe that districts have an obligation to fix schools, while others, like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, hold that some schools are so troubled that the only choice is to shut them down and replace them with potentially better schools.
At a press conference, schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott blasted the lawsuit as “outrageous” and said the action will “hold hostage” thousands of students who are set to attend certain schools.
“Students now have to wait and wonder” whether they can attend the school they chose or were assigned to, Mr. Walcott said. “It’s unacceptable, and we’re not going to tolerate that. We’re going to fight. Right now the UFT and the NAACP are denying our students quality options.”
About 70,000 students have already been matched to city high schools, and thousands more have gone through the charter lottery process to determine their schools.
Hours earlier, Michael Mulgrew, the UFT’s president, said at a press conference that the DOE “has not learned its lesson.” He said the lawsuit is based on the DOE’s failure to satisfy an agreement it reached with the UFT to support failing schools before deciding to close them. The suit also charges that charter schools are getting better access to facilities than the traditional schools in the same buildings, which would be contrary to state law that mandates equal treatment among schools.
Those on the side of the teachers union, which includes a number of City Council members who attended the UFT press conference, community advocates and parents, said the city’s process of phasing out schools one grade at a time is disruptive to the students that are left behind. In addition, the lawsuit charges that charter schools that are placed in traditional school buildings get better access to amenities such as libraries, cafeterias and gyms.
Mr. Mulgrew said that after losing the legal fight to close schools last year, the DOE agreed to support the failing schools with more staff and other assistance, but he said that never materialized.
The DOE “is depriving students of tools and resources to achieve academically,” said Ken Cohen, regional director of the New York State Conference of the NAACP. Mr. Cohen said that at Jamaica High School, for instance, the new schools have smart boards while the students at the school being phased out have “broken blackboards.”
Mr. Walcott rejected all of the lawsuit’s allegations, saying the motivation was to protect jobs, not students. He said he was particularly disappointed in the role that the NAACP has played in the new lawsuit and last year’s, saying the group “is defending schools that are failing our children.”
Mr. Walcott cited the performance numbers of the schools on the closure list. For the elementary and middle schools, he said average English-language proficiency is 16%, compared to 42% citywide. In math, it is 19% versus 53%. The average graduation rate of the closing high schools is 49%, compared with the city’s average of 63%, the DOE said.
“These figures are not something to brag about,” Mr. Walcott said. “They should be with us,” he said, referring to the union.
Write to Barbara Martinez at Barbara.Martinez@wsj.com
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK
Crains New York had a good piece on the living wage legislation currently being debated in NY. “The Bronx lawmaker said the bill, which would compel employers at projects that receive city subsidies to pay $10 an hour plus benefits, or $11.50 without benefits, is designed to “build a stronger economy,”.
I’ve spoken in earlier posts about the need for economic impact studies in NY with regard to financial legislation — just as construction projects necessitate an environmental impact study in order to assess the pros and cons and to find out the true cost, the same process should be applied to economic legislation. A bill such as this perfect fodder for this type of assessment.
LIVING WAGE BILL GETS WATERED DOWN
Councilman Oliver Koppell, the primary sponsor of the City Council’s controversial living wage bill, has been writing to its opponents in recent weeks to explain its “core rationale” and to propose ways to narrow its scope.
The Bronx lawmaker said the bill, which would compel employers at projects that receive city subsidies to pay $10 an hour plus benefits, or $11.50 without benefits, is designed to “build a stronger economy,” and that it was never intended to apply to nonprofits, small businesses and residential projects.
He said he’s considering broadening an exemption to carve out small businesses with annual revenues of $1 million or less; raising the subsidy threshold that triggers the bill to above $100,000; clarifying that certain subsidies like the Industrial and Commercial Abatement and J-51 incentives are exempt; and reducing the record-keeping requirement to six years from 30.
A source close to the Council said the subsidy threshold could be bumped up to as high as $1 million and the small business exemption could be raised to as much as $5 million.
In an interview, Mr. Koppell said the proposed amendments stem from testimony provided by opponents at a City Council hearing on the bill last month. “We don’t want to do anything that will discourage economic activity,” he said. “There are some clear issues raised at the hearing that should be taken care of.”
Proponents of the bill say the city should not subsidize projects that create “poverty-wage” jobs. They argue that stores benefit indirectly from subsidies granted to their landlords, and thus it is fair to ask them to pay more than the state minimum wage.
Opponents, however, contend the bill is flawed beyond repair and say amending it will not satisfy them.
“Koppell is trying to change the bill primarily because there has been broad opposition voiced to the legislation from across all five boroughs,” said Nancy Ploeger, president of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, a member of the Five Boro Chamber Alliance, which is leading opposition to the bill. “Wage mandates, regardless of amendments from the City Council, are a nonstarter from the perspective of the business community.”
Ms. Ploeger said she has written to Mr. Koppell on behalf of the coalition offering to meet with him to “discuss ways to promote job creation” in the city. “This bill is not one of them,” she said.
Proponents of the bill said they consent to Mr. Koppell’s proposed changes. “We’re trying to get a bill passed,” said a spokesman for the Living Wage NYC coalition, which is led by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. “These changes actually strengthen the bill while keeping its core focus the same.”
The bill has 30 sponsors in the City Council, four shy of the number needed to overcome a veto by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has expressed disdain for wage mandates.
But City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who decides whether the bill comes to a vote, has yet to take a stance on the measure. She did meet with Mr. Koppell to discuss the revisions and expressed appreciation for his willingness to compromise. But she is focused on crafting a city budget for the fiscal year that begins next month, not on living-wage legislation.
“Basically, I think the speaker’s view on the bill is ‘let’s get the budget done,’ Mr. Koppell said.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, NEW YORK
Having solved all other fiscal problems in NY, our legislators are working to kill more businesses with this bill. Below is an article from Cranes New York
Advocates for a law requiring city businesses to offer their employees paid sick days step up their efforts as similar measures advance in Connecticut and Philadelphia.
Connecticut legislators are about to pass a bill to make their state the first in the nation to require employers to provide workers with paid sick time. And City Council members in Philadelphia are expected to vote Thursday on a bill mandating up to seven paid sick days per year for workers.
With that momentum, advocates in New York City are stepping up efforts to revive a sick-pay bill shelved last year by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn over concerns that it would harm small businesses.
“Making sure New Yorkers can take a day off when they are sick or need to care for their children—without having to miss a paycheck or worry about losing their job—is the right thing for workers,” said Councilwoman Gale Brewer, the bill’s lead sponsor. “Our neighbors [Connecticut and Philadelphia] recognize the same logic and know it’s the right thing for businesses, too. The time has come for paid sick days in New York City.”
The Council bill is being pushed by the New York State Paid Family Leave Coalition, an alliance of more than 400 labor, community, business and women’s groups. As in Connecticut, where lawmakers could vote Friday or Saturday on sick pay, the local chapter of the Working Families Party is an active member of the group. Members are meeting regularly and expect to soon re-launch a public campaign geared towards bringing the bill to a vote this fall.
Ms. Brewer said she will be meeting with fellow Council members to let them know about the developments on sick pay around the country.
Her bill would require businesses with 20 or more employees to offer nine sick days a year and smaller businesses to give five. It has 35 sponsors in the Council, one more than needed to overcome a potential veto by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Despite her members’ sponsorship, Ms. Quinn did not let the bill get to a vote last year, contending it would have a crushing impact on small businesses in a down economy. She promised to revisit the issue every two months, assessing whether economic conditions had improved.
The city’s economic recovery has outpaced that of the nation, with the five boroughs adding nearly 40,000 jobs in the first four months of the year, according to real estate services firm Eastern Consolidated. In the past 19 months, the city has recovered more than half of the jobs lost in the downturn, while the nation has recovered only about 20% of its losses.
“Even though the city’s fared better, we’re far from seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, especially when you’re looking at small businesses,” said Linda Baran, president of the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce, part of a coalition of chambers that led opposition to the bill last year. “Locally, I don’t know any small businesses that are hiring. They’re concerned about making their payroll.”
Carl Hum, president of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, said that one only need to look at Friday’s weak national jobs report to know that the economy is “still pretty fragile.” He said that the Connecticut bill appears to be moving forward “over the objection of business groups” and that “the difference here in New York is that we have a speaker that brought the business community in to talk about the bill.”
A spokesman for Ms. Quinn said that conversations with Ms. Brewer about paid sick days are ongoing. Ms. Brewer said that the speaker has asked about the upcoming vote in Philadelphia. It’s unclear if she will be swayed by efforts in other states, which are being led primarily by the 15-state consortium Family Values @ Work.
In addition to the votes in Connecticut and Philadelphia, the Seattle City Council is set to introduce a sick-pay bill on Wednesday; a bi-partisan group of state legislators in Georgia led by five Republicans is supporting a measure to allow workers to use sick time to care for children and other family members; and a coalition in Denver is pressing for a ballot initiative on sick days in November. San Francisco and Washington already require paid sick days.
The White House has also entered the fray, hosting a series of workplace flexibility forums—including one in New York City this week—designed to help American workers meet the demands of their jobs without sacrificing the needs of their families.
“We know New York is different, and we’re willing to work towards what would make sense for everybody,” Ms. Brewer said. “But I’m hoping that the national momentum pushes us here.”
by | ECONOMY, NEW YORK, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Having dinner with Scott Rasmussen a couple weeks ago, we got onto the subject of Social Security. He remarked that people have different ideas about Social Security reform. Some people suggest raising taxes or the retirement age, other people want to go with privatization, still others propose reducing the benefits. Interestingly, Scott had a entirely different idea that is simple but brilliant.
Here’s the scope: Allow each Social Security recipient the latitude to pick how he wants his money accrued and allotted. For instance, if you want to retire at 70, then you can. If you want to retire at 65, so be it. If you want to increase benefits, you can tweak your contributions as such. With each person controlling the time frame and/or amount to be collected and reserved, this solution alleviates that one-solution-fits-all approach to reform that undoubtedly helps some and hurt others.
I think Scot’s idea has great potential.
by | BLOG
More good reading today–this one coming out of the Acton Institute.
A short piece, nevertheless it points out that Otto von Bismarck was the father of the welfare state, and maintains that Obama is following Bismarck’s vision of government. Read below.
The November congressional elections are not so much a referendum on the Obama administration as a check on whether President Barack Obama’s implementation of a Bismarckian vision of government will continue.
Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian prime minister/German chancellor from 1862 to 1890, is the father of the welfare state. He advanced the vision that government should serve as a social services institution by taking earned wealth from the rich and from businesses to deliver services to those who are not as advantaged. Bismarck’s Kulturkampf campaign intended both to keep radical socialists at bay and undermine the church’s role in meeting the needs of local citizens by positioning government to be the primary source of social services. He initiated the ideal of an ever-expanding, beneficent government, which was subsequently imported to the United States in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, expanded further with Lyndon Johnson’sWar on Poverty, and currently drives the policies of the Obama administration. Barack Obama is not a 19th-century socialist, but his agenda is unquestionably Bismarckian.
In 1891, William Dawson, in Bismarck and State Socialism, explained that Bismarck believed it was the duty of the state to promote the welfare of all its members. On November 22, 1888, in response to Germany’s 1873 economic crisis, Bismarck proclaimed, “I regard it as the duty of the State to endeavor to ameliorate existing economic evils.” In Bismarck-like fashion, commenting on America’s economic crisis, President Obama declared in January 2009 that, “It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the cycle that are crippling our economy—where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.” In a Bismarckian world, “only” government can set the national economy right.
Regarding universal health insurance, on March 15th, 1884, Bismarck asked, “Is it the duty of the State, or is it not, to provide for its helpless citizens?” He answered, “I maintain that it is its duty.” It is the duty of the state to “the seek the cheapest form of insurance, and, not aiming at profit for itself, must keep primarily in view the benefit for the poor and needy.” Similarly, under the federal healthcare reform law, Congress forbids health insurance companies from raising insurance premiums until insurers submit to Obamacare officials “a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase.” In effect, government determines health insurance premiums.
On unemployment, Bismarck believed that government is ultimately responsible for finding jobs for those unemployed through no fault of their own, those lacking opportunity to work and thus prohibited from properly sustaining themselves. On March 15, 1884 Bismarck exclaimed, “If an establishment employing twenty thousand or more workpeople were to be ruined . . . we could not allow these men to hunger”—even if it means creating government jobs for national infrastructure improvements. “In such cases we build railways,” says Bismarck. “We carry out improvements which otherwise would be left to private initiative.” Likewise, in July, President Obama proclaimed, “I believe it’s critical we extend unemployment insurance for several more months, so that Americans who’ve been laid off through no fault of their own get the support they need to provide for their families and can maintain their health insurance until they’re rehired.” Then, in September, President Obama announced a six-year, $50 billion infrastructure proposal “to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads,” “maintain 4,000 miles of our railways,” and “restore 150 miles of runways.” To keep America working, Obama is channeling Bismarck’s vision of government as creator of jobs.
By the 1890s, for several reasons, Germany was forced to abandon many of Bismarck’s specific reforms. However, Bismarck’s method of using of government as the ultimate provider of social services paid for by the earned wealth of others is the modus operandi of the Obama administration. The outcome of contests for congressional seats will determine whether the nation continues down the path chosen by Barack Obama, but blazed long ago by the visionary of the omnicompetent state, Otto von Bismarck.
