financial aid and rants and raves

Though it may seem as if I haven't posted in ages, I did have an essay covering my experience with nearly losing my job, but the editorializing, whiff of scandal, and dark truths revealed required that I had to take it down. I still have the post saved, but I can allow only a select few to read it. Still employed nearly a year later, I've been viewing the events in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio with morbid fascination and resignation. One of the (accidental) themes of this blog is my internal inconsistency. I work for the government, but am a rabid conservative. I make excellent money, but still dumpster dive (or at least consider it). I have a great life on many levels, but am dissatisfied with America and plan to escape when the shit hits the fan. I catch a whiff of fecal matter, and my ass is gone. Either I simply cannot appreciate the bounty life has granted me, or I realize the impermanence of it all, and can't quite fall for the lies I'm being told. Actually, I should blame my chaotic upbringing, but I may be channelling my shrink. While my internal (and eternal) conflicts lead me to be more pessimistic than most, even our most level-headed faculty members are beginning to see the light. That isn't the end of the tunnel Dr., Prof, Director, or whomever; it's an oncoming train. Budget problems are the preferred euphemism, with governmental bankruptcy a term not presently in fashion. The notion that government is broke is hardly new, but it is no longer a fringe concept. I could yammer away at the preferred solution: inflation. This is a little off topic, since the levels of government at issue are local and state. Only the feds can debase a currency. Governmental debt is lessened by inflation, but discretionary spending is hurt as people use a greater percentage of their income to buy food, gas, etc. Inflation is an underhanded way to lower workers' income as a stealth tax and make labor cheaper and exports easier to sell. I could expound endlessly on the cause and effect of killing the dollar, but I have neither the inclination nor the intelligence. Much of the blame for the state and local deficits is placed on civil service unions and the generous benefits and salaries and pensions they've successfully negotiated. Some of this a remnant of the pro-labor 60's and 70's. How can the government goad employers to provide a living wage and benefits if it doesn't do it itself? An excellent example of this was a recent dust-up in Indiana. A state representative suggested that calls to state agencies should be routed to India to save money, and he was crucified in the press and by other politicians. If states can outsource jobs, why can't private companies? Some of this is the legacy of privatizing governmental services to save money, and the unintended consequences therein. Another great example? The Bee-Line bus strike, which was allowed because the unionized bus drivers worked not for the County, but a private bus company paid by Westchester. We have nearly a million people here in Westchester, but only 55,000 people use the bus. The strike paralyzed a good portion of the working poor of Westchester (and quite a few of our students), but the powers that be were apathetic at best. Our county exec was on a trade mission to China at the time, and did not return to bring the parties together. In the midst of all these debates on TV and in statehouses, one question remains unexplored: are civil servants truly overpaid? In your author's humble opinion, no. I would explain the gap between public and private workers the other way; private workers aren't paid enough. Because we're in a union, we are better able to surpass the rate of inflation in our wages and benefits. Non-unionized workers have seen their pay stagnate since the mid 60's. So, if the reason we make as much as we do is the fact that we are unionized, then the solution is to eliminate the unions. The question I'm not hearing is as follows: is this even legal? Can the government unilaterally deny an employment class the right to collectively bargain? Maybe, as it turns out. New York has the Taylor Law of 1967, which prevents civil servants from striking. It has many other provisions that are very pro-labor (this is New York after all...), but our inability to strike is a serious limitation of our rights as workers. If this right can be eliminated, why not the ability to bargain collectively? It should be noted that the states listed above don't completely disband the unions, per se, but only certain aspects of employment can be covered in bargaining. If these laws were illegal, I'm certain someone from the Left (like everyone on MSNBC) would have shouted it from the rooftops. Instead, we've heard nary a peep. So I have to operate on the assumption these laws, if challenged, will be upheld. There's a trade-off when working for the government. To do so, you lose some of the rights you have as a private sector worker. Running for office, participating in political campaigns, etc. are more or less curtailed depending on the jurisdiction. The jump from those limitations to these isn't that big. So, when will this hit me? It's hard to say. I doubt New York will repeal the Taylor Law that authorized municipal unions, but I could see counties and cities declaring bankruptcy en masse to enable them to renegotiate these contracts. This isn't a magic bullet, (just ask Vallejo CA), but it may be the only way New York survives. Scott and I were discussing this topic in a round-about fashion this morning over breakfast. New York has been leaking people for decades, but some of us still stay. Manhattan isn't emptying out, but Upstate is. If, eventually, my job (actually, more like the entire industry) will be eliminated or restructured to the point where my role will cease to exist, why would I live in New York, with it's insane taxes, nasty winters, and high cost of living? If I could be broke in Florida or broke in New York, I'll take Florida. My thoughts on all of this are disorganized. I haven't even covered the unfunded pension liabilites, which are massive. this begs another question: do the changes in the laws even fix that problem? I haven't heard that question broached either. Anyway, change is always coming, and I'm not immune.