Money and the Ethnic Vote

"C'est vrai, c'est vrai qu'on a été battus, au fond, par quoi? Par l'argent puis des votes ethniques, essentiellement". ("It's true, it's true we were beaten, yes, but by what? By money and ethnic votes, essentially.") - Jacques Parizeau, 1995 (Source: Wikipedia)

I held off on writing this post for a few days to settle my thoughts on the recent election.  Over the past few days it has seemed that everyone has given a reason as to why Mitt Romney lost the election. When discussing with friends, it was almost as if they felt that American Values have gone out the window and the root cause, although not everyone has explicitly stated this, due to immigrants not having the same values as America and eroding our society. When people claim minorities as a contributing reason, it makes me feel very uncomfortable as having belonged the 'ethnic votes' in the election I quoted above. It was not too long ago that Jews were/are considered to be a group which does not share the values of Americans. The same of the Catholics and the Mormons. It smells of Xenophobia and racism and makes me feel uncomfortable voting for a leaders who may hold such beliefs, even if they have the same political values as I do. In Quebec, most Jews actually favor many of the political values held by the separatist party, yet will not vote for them because of their underlying xenophobia.

If the Republicans want to win, it has to be about how their message is relevant and important to all groups and all Americans, whether they be Black, Hispanic, Muslim, or Asian and Whites. They have to show or convey a message of being inclusive and welcoming to all the tired, poor, and hungry masses who yearn to share and give and be free in the the American experience. The message should not be that they should focus only on their base and getting them to turn out. As a recent op-ed in the WSJ points out that this approach will likely also lead to future Republican disappointments.

I think as a society, and the American experience, is taking everything in the world and incorporating the good parts into our society. Or as someone once said 'everywhere has something they are known for, although it usually washes up on our shores'.

The Life of Julia

While reading Best of the Web Today, it was difficult not to be surprised and disappointed by what seemed to be a poor attempt to poke fun at Obama's policies via a girl named Julia.

Her story is told in an interactive feature titled "The Life of Julia". Julia, who has no face, is depicted at various ages from 3 through 67, enjoying the benefits of various Obama-backed welfare-state programs. As a toddler, she's in a head-start program. Skip ahead to 17, and she's enrolled at a Race to the Top high school. Her 20s are very active: She gets surgery and free birth control through ObamaCare regulations, files a lawsuit under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and pays off her student loans at a low interest rate. We get updates at age 31, 37 and 42--and then the narrative skips ahead 23 years when she enrolls in Medicare. Two years later, she's on Social Security, at which point she can die at any time. 

The entire paragraph seemed like a horrible parody made by Republicans to poke fun at Obama's policies by showing that a woman could basically live her whole life off the backs of taxpayers, so it was at first surprising to see that Taranto quotes a David Harsanyi raises an obvious objection to the story: "What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people's money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I'd say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have--outwardly, at least--shunned." Why is that an objection if that's exactly the point of the feature? Overall, it's not a great parody, anyway: The missing gaps, while still a minority of her life, don't fit into the cradle-to-grave government care narrative, and there's no discussion about the actual costs to taxpayers of all these policies, which would seem to be important to make the point cogent.

...and then I realized that I'd skimmed too quickly and missed a few key words:

on the Obama campaign website

I was so surprised by this that I had to double-check and click on the link to see. It would seem quite telling that an Obama campaign feature meant to praise his policies comes off as a caricature of his policies, wouldn't it? Yuval Levin (via CWY) even notes that Obama runs the risk that it will be mocked not just by the right, but by young men and women who won't be able to resist such an easy opportunity, undermining his campaign from within a core constituency of his. (Best line: "It’s like Portlandia earnestly offered up as a drama.")

Overall, it can't help but make a person wonder if this is as outlandish as it appears or simply a vote grab early on in the campaign among his base. It tries scaring women who aren't bright enough to understand both sides of the coin and who will believe the twisted misrepresentation of Romney's policies, it promotes the idea of government assistance at every stage of life, and the like. It is very difficult to believe that these ideas resonate with most Americans, who still believe government's role is to be a safety net, not a caregiver, even if they disagree on the size of the net. Then again, perhaps the President and his advisors are so completely out of touch with what Americans want (or don't care, and these are their views on what's right), as we've seen previously with ObamaCare [interestingly referred to as such on the feature] and many other policies.

Either way, it's an important feature to see: Obama's policies as presented by his campaign. If that's what you want, vote for Obama; if not, though, I would suggest voting against.

So Much To Say...

...so little time, at least to do so properly. So let's just try some rapid-fire instead:

• It is incredibly difficult to consistently have to debate between being deflated by the horrible actions and words of so many in the Orthodox Jewish community and inspired by all those who decry and fight against those same actions and words. The problem, as always, is that the former group so often seems to be far bigger than the latter.
  
  A few posts on this should be coming soon.
• On a similar but different note, it's sad and amazing to see the constant changes in so many of our friends' lives (and our own). We've seen too many close friends and family go through unbearable pain, loss, hardship, or divorce; and we've thankfully seen far more build  and begin to build beautiful lives, whether professionally, locale, getting married, having kids, or the like. It's tough also to see some people in the same circles going through joy and pain at the same time, knowing that each one impacts the other as well, and it's hard to be there as much as we'd like to be for friends both in hard times and in good ones.
• The Supreme Court deliberations on ObamaCare were incredibly fascinating and worth reading in full (trust me, I did it - the link there is Tuesday's, which is likely the most important). I don't see how the individual mandate doesn't get struck down, and while less sure I'd imagine that the rest will get struck down with it (perhaps with a different group of assenting judges).
  
  As an added note, the President's statement today 'warning' the Supreme Court was ludicrous and a ridiculous overreach of power (at least in terms of words) [imagine if President Bush had said the same before a major SCOTUS decision], but more laughable was what he said about this being "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" - as CWY noted, every law is passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress! The judges' role is to determine if those are Constitutional. Plus, it wasn't a strong majority at all, but a bare majority of 217-212 in the House with not a single Republican voting Yea. 
• If it does get struck down, it might be the best gift for Mitt Romney presuming he is the Republican nominee, taking away a difficult issue for him. He can turn the focus on the economy itself, an area where his record is substantially better than Obama's. 
• My current job places a very strong focus on Medicare and Medicaid, particularly the financial portions of each. It is mind-boggling to me to see just how poorly and behind the times government has been and will continue to be, and how much waste they cause despite truly noble intentions. The government simply has no ability to manage care either from a clinical perspective or a financial perspective, which means that everyone is damaged in the process.*
• The NBA season is over, with the Cavs doing a nice job of positioning for this coming draft, and the NFL Draft I'm trying to avoid getting too deep into at this point (trade to #6, take Claiborne!) because I'll probably end up driving myself insane. So... it's baseball time!
  
  My team this year (10-team rotisserie, 5x5 standard, 1,350ip max, standard lineup including C/1B/2B/3B/SS/4OF/CI/2Util/2SP/6P/5Bench) picked 5th: C Napoli; 1B Lind; 2B Kipnis; 3B Bautista; CI M.Young; SS A.Cabrera; OF A.Gordon, Hart, Joyce, Rios; Util Zobrist, V.Wells; Bench Bourgeoius, Hafner, Mayberry. SP Halladay, C.Lee, Weaver, Fister; CL Hanrahan, Valverde, Santos, Motte, Storen; RP Pestano. Overall a fantastic pitching staff and a much better lineup than I normally start with.
• Finally, if you are interested in seeing a great Cleveland Browns fan show his dedication to the team and his even stronger dedication to Judaism, though, this guy's "Fanography" is really fun to watch. I'm not being biased at all - my friends have all enjoyed and made a point to tell me how much they enjoyed. :-P

Enjoy!

* Not that I believe it necessary as this should be obvious, but please note that any opinions on this blog are my own and never that of my employers. 

House Over Health = ...Hero?

(HT: Josh Yuter)

A lady named Spike Ward penned an op-ed yesterday in the LA Times discussing how she was formerly against ObamaCare, but now that she has cancer, she has changed her mind. In her words:

The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost.

Now, she has discovered that ObamaCare has a provision which allows her to get insurance, and this may now help save her life.

From the comments on her op-ed and on Facebook, etc., it seems as if many people are hailing this as a proof that ObamaCare is wonderful. While certainly it is wonderful for Mrs. Ward that she can now be treated without going broke, isn't this absurd? Mr. and Mrs. Ward made a conscious decision to choose their house over their health insurance, and contrary to her statement that "We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost", they in fact won: They got to keep their house, and their health insurance tab is now being picked up by the rest of the country (somewhat indirectly, as she is paying premiums, but that is not the point).

Contrast that with the decisions made by millions of people each day who consciously choose to keep their health insurance intact and sacrifice in other ways: Nobody is picking up the tab for their foreclosed (or sold at a loss) homes or their cars. They don't get to keep everything they had and then have the rest of the country cover anything they can't afford anymore. It is a horrible testament to this country that someone's irresponsible and selfish "gamble" is being guaranteed by the federal government* and that that burden is being carried by people who made responsible decisions.

* Note that this is no different than the bank bailouts in that sense, except that at least the argument there was (however much I may disagree) that despite their irresponsibility, a bailout was necessary to avoid others being hurt as well. Here, the only beneficiary is Mrs. Ward and her family, who get to keep their house and have her healthcare paid for by everyone else.

Dink and... Doink

In 2009-2010, politicians (mostly Democratic) went after banks. The CARD act in 2009, Dodd-Frank in 2010, and other laws were passed to restrict various fees and limit interest rates being charged by banks. The obvious result of this was that banks began making a lot less money, particularly in certain areas - for example, banks could no longer charge retailers "swipe fees" for every transaction using their debit cards.

The even more obvious result is that banks, starting with Bank of America, will now charge debit card fees of $5 per month. Whoops!

Here is what inherently bothers me about how people stupidly approach regulations: There is never an end to them. Unless you completely restrict all free choice and eliminate the free market (and there are those who advocate this... as long as it's not for them), there is no way to "control" the market. People and companies do things and create primarily because it is worthwhile for them to do so. As soon as it ceases being worthwhile, they will stop. This is not "evil". This is reality. 

The shortsighted approach people and politicians have when it comes to how regulations impact the economy is mind-boggling. I recently was reading about GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain, and was pointed to video of a 1990s town hall meeting on President Clinton's healthcare plan, where then pizza company CEO Herman Cain challenged the effects of President Clinton's proposed plan on businesses such as his own. While Clinton's handle on the subject was solid, Cain was quite masterful in showing that for most businesses the impact would be quite harsh... and even though Clinton suggested passing that cost on to customers (!), that simply would not be enough, nor would smaller or midsize companies be able to compete long enough with the largest ones in that situation. 

Let's forget for a minute that restricting freedom is wrong. What happens when a rule is made? There is a reaction. And if that reaction does not fit perfectly into the rule-makers' designs? Another rule is made... and this goes on forever, never solving the original problem fully while creating entirely different sets of problems along the way. In the comments to the last post, Vox Populi and I were having another positive and interesting debate, and one of the features was an aside on whether government should support people's post-high school educations. He was of the opinion that we could make college completely free for all, and this would service us better as a country. I strongly disagree for many reasons, and some of these are obvious objections, but for fun, we debated how this would work.

Essentially, what would end up happening in such a scenario (and I'm going to exaggerate on this, don't take it too seriously) is that there would be created a myriad of rules, as the response to every flaw in a rule is simply creating another rule: College education is free, to help people get a leg up in society. But, we don't want people going to school forever and never contributing, so we'll cap it at two degrees. But what if someone's first degrees don't work out or become obsolete? We'd have to make an exception. But then others would take advantage of this exception. Plus, what about people going to medical school? And what if someone is demonstrably better, and getting this third degree would help them contribute more? But that wouldn't be fair to the other person who didn't grow up with some of those advantages. But maybe we shouldn't support people who aren't going to contribute as much? Or maybe we should cap the number of people in each major? Or perhaps we should create a board which determines who should go into what field based on the skill sets they currently have. Also, now that we have X number of X major, but there aren't enough jobs for them, that would be a waste of taxpayer resources, so we should force companies to hire these students. The extra expense could be a tax credit to those businesses, picked up by the taxpayers. ...and so on. Meanwhile, costs would continue to skyrocket with no real value added - certainly not a value worth the cost. 

A good example of value not worth the cost was the "stimulus", and another good one is President Obama's latest jobs proposal. Essentially, he wants to spend about $450 billion dollars, which would hopefully create about 2 million jobs. Essentially, the cost per job created would be $200,000 per job. How is that logical? I'm unemployed - I'll take $100,000, stop collecting unemployment, and government can keep the difference, is that a good deal? I'm betting that 4.5 million unemployed people would take that deal - how would that impact the unemployment rate, you think?

The silly approach of ignoring the consequences of regulations and other approaches within government needs to end. Instead, it's used to vilify individuals and corporations for doing what actually makes sense given the cards they are consistently being dealt by reality and government.

Downgrade

Obama: "And the markets agree with me."
Markets: Dow Below 11,000; Nasdaq, S&P Lose 5% After Obama Addresses Downgrade (Yahoo)

Whoops!

Hasn't the time come for President Obama to stop thinking that people will believe something just because he says it on camera? That worked as a candidate - not as President. It is doubtful that even most Republicans and conservatives expected him to end up Jimmy Carter-esque in quality, but right now it's looking that that will be the company he keeps as far as Presidents go. That's rather sad for someone who - regardless of one's feelings about him - came in as someone with incredible oratory skills, polish, and who showed quickly that his views on defense could shift as his understanding of it grew with the office. Liberals certainly expected better of him (in different ways), but nobody of any stripe expected a Presidency this poor.

(It is perhaps just as sad that there is no current Republican candidate that one can point to and say "That would be a huge upgrade!")

Bibi's Impact

It seems just about everyone thinks Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu was incredibly strong this past week in how he addressed and presented Israel's concerns and approach to the future of the Middle East, whether they agree in general or not. And, throughout the country and especially in Congress, most people really liked and appreciated the points he made as well, leading to the seemingly unending, loud standing ovations from the entire Congress, something most Presidents get once or twice in each of their State of the Union addresses - which is a depressing point, when one thinks about it.

There are however two particularly interesting points that seemed worth a bit more inspection:

• What is so different between Bibi Netanyahu circa 1999 and Bibi Netanyahu circa 2011,
• And why did what he say resonate so strongly with Americans?

Bennett Ruda at Daled Amos asked the first question today:

I wonder whether Netanyahu is any less passionate than he was during his first term as Prime Minister--I imagine not. But few remember Bibi's first term as Prime Minister all that fondly.
Let's not forget that Netanyahu's performance over the weekind was something of a surprise--a pleasant surprise, but a surprise nevertheless. There was concern, as there has been for many months, that Bibi would fold--that he would give in to US pressure. But he did not.

I believe (and Bennett agreed as well) that the difference is primarily expectations. In the nineties, Netanyahu ran on a platform which essentially stated that the peace process as formulated was devastating to Israel and would place the country in grave danger, by being the first country to capitulate to terrorist tactics - then went on to make some questionable concessions himself. All in all, people were disappointed as compared to what they had desired and expected.

This week, the expectations were much lower, and much more nerve-wracking. People weren't sure what Netanyahu may or may not concede to after a strong speech by President Obama. But instead (and perhaps the overstepping of the President in calling for a return to a 1967-based border before discussing Jerusalem, "right of return", et al allowed for this), he did the exact opposite. He firmed up his stance clearly and unequivocally, demonstrating exactly why those points were not demands, but necessities, and obvious to any rational observer or listener.

~~~

In today's Best of the Web, James Taranto quotes Walter Russell Mead, who believes that Netanyahu's speech "may have been the single most stunning and effective public rebuke to an American President a foreign leader has ever delivered." Perhaps more interestingly, Taranto discusses (and agrees with) Mead's assertion that

Being pro-Israel matters in American mass politics because the public mind believes at a deep level that to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America and pro-faith. Substantial numbers of voters believe that politicians who don't "get" Israel also don't "get" America and don't "get" God.

While this certainly has a strong ring of truth to it, it doesn't seem to be the primary reason Netanyahu resonated so well across the spectrum with his statements.What Netanyahu discussed, when he wasn't giving basic but important history lessons, were true elements relating to freedom. There are broad differences among American Jews, let alone Americans, in terms of what Israel should be doing and how to approach the Middle East's various issues. But above all, what Americans value is freedom, and I believe that it is that core value which is what spoke so strongly to Americans from Netanyahu's speech and other comments throughout the weekend.

There are two basic elements of freedom, democracy, and liberty: The freedom to make one's own choices in life; and the restrictions we place on ourselves so as not to infringe on other people's freedoms.* When the leader of a small but strong democracy notes that his people simply must have secure, defensible borders, Americans relate. We understand, perhaps now better than ever, that it is integral to feel safe in one's own country - whether at home, on a bus, at work, or on the way home from school. When he asks us to imagine a country just nine miles wide in the middle, it is not hard to relate to the difficulty of defending a country as wide as the average person's daily commute. When he states Israel will not accept approaches which do not protect their basic interests, and neither would America in the same situation, we accept that only Israel should determine its fate. And when he speaks his mind to say (thanks JoeSettler for the text)

Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one half of 1% are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!

This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East; Israel is what is right about the Middle East!

most people just get it.

For all of the issues, all of the concerns, Israel is doing what the United States has always done: Stand for freedom. As Netanyahu noted in an interview, the Korean War memorial says simply "Freedom is never Free." The United States has fought many wars, often even ones that barely involved them, for the cause of freedom. Israel has fought many wars, and is now trying to forge a lasting peace, to protect its people and their freedoms - with neighbors who themselves are not free. It is nearly impossible for any American, raised on the principles of freedom and liberty, to not feel a strong kinship with Israel.

Until a final resolution is reached, there will continue to be debate as to the best route to a lasting peace, should one exist. But most important for Israel, and Prime Minister Netanyahu, is that he was able to clearly transmit the principles which must guide such a peace - principles which cannot be denied, principles which are understood as fundamental concepts by the people of the United States of America: Security; self-determination; and above all, freedom.


* Ezzie: I believe I just saw someone say this, and I'm drawing a blank as to who and where. My sincere apologies.

Netanyahu's Comments Before Obama

Perhaps the best comments by an Israeli Prime Minister to and in front of an American President in decades, Netanyahu makes it abundantly clear what Israel will and will not accept. Some people view this as a slap to Obama; I'm not so sure - I think that Obama sitting through this is interesting and impressive, and moreover gives him an "out" moving forward. (Contrast to Clinton's appropriate rant about Arafat to Arafat as he left office.) Israel now has said its piece (and said it well), while Obama can say he did his best to the Arabs while keeping his Jewish support ("The Prime Minister and I had a very good conversation", etc.).

Either way - I, and I'm sure countless others, are quite happy with Netanyahu.

Hat tip: Dave and others

Obama's Middle East Speech: Nothing New

Not that I'm faulting or complaining, but it's astounding how little new material is in today's speech by President Obama regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

In fact, that's all I have to say on it.

Thanks to the apple for the transcript.

Seeing is Believing in Politics, Too

It's why President Obama started his 2012 campaign before a government shutdown potentially occurs (to change the visual) even though it seemingly hurts him (to run against his own record with no clear opponent), while the NRSC wisely spoofed it quickly (and reasonably well; via SIL) and how Paul Ryan is doing far more damage to Obama with the great visual accompaniments to his own budget proposal than by simply proposing an alternate budget to the President's. (Video via YwL)

While most people won't even spend the time to watch this, it's actually a) pretty interesting and well done and b) far more likely to be watched by people than the budget proposal being read in any way, and c) gives a much more clear picture of what we're talking about.

Separate But Equal

New York City metro area

(Hat tip: SaraK) Slate has a really fascinating piece analyzing the census data which has come out for the United States, focusing especially on the de facto segregation that still exists today. The slideshow, which has mapped images of the top 10 most segregated cities, is really cool.

The most segregated are:

1. Milwaukee
2. New York
3. Chicago
4. Detroit
5. Cleveland
6. Buffalo
7. St. Louis
8. Cincinnati
9. Philadelphia
10. Los Angeles

I've lived in three of these cities, and can't say the results are too surprising. Milwaukee had a nice swath of white supremacists, but that alone obviously doesn't tell the story. (For instance, the Cleveland expert feels Cleveland's split demographic has more to do with people leaving Cleveland, period, than specifically leaving communities blacks are moving to.) One point that I think is interesting is that the cities which are heavily segregated all voted heavily for President Obama in the last election - and not just the urban sections of mostly minorities, but the suburban sections of whites as well. I recall having this discussion with people before, but New York City for example for all its supposed diversity simply isn't truly diverse at all - everyone lives in a community with "their people", not with one another.


I wonder if this segregation impacts how people approach government's intervention into various aspects of their lives. In integrated cities, people know one another and view each other as individuals, and feel that they all already have equal opportunities to succeed in life - it doesn't matter if you're black or white, Latino or Asian, it's about what you put into it (coupled with a fair amount of luck). In segregated cities, people view each other far more in a "group" context, and think that government intervention is the key to equal opportunity (or outcomes, anyway). Ironically, it is specifically those areas which pursue interventionist policies that end up segregating themselves further as those policies often keep people exactly where they are, whereas without such policies people are more likely to move and seek out better opportunities rather than stay to pick up various benefits.

EZ Reads 3/9/11

Happy engagiversary to Serach and me! I've updated the tabs at the top (which I will try to make more noticeable in the near future) to include and be up to date on the various series that are ongoing on this blog. If you would like to read through any major series, those are the best places to start. Some fun links today:

• Following up on their previous analysis, The New York Times determines that American Jews lead the happiest lives of all Americans. Brilliant first comment on the article (just saw it was removed!): Sure, most of them are happy, but those other 30%, boy can they complain!
• Mishpacha has a very good article this week explaining charter schools and how they can (and usually have not) impacted Orthodox schools and yeshivos. Excerpt:

  Unlike the situation in Brooklyn and East Brunswick, Florida’s Ben Gamla charter school network has attracted a solid Jewish majority in its student body, and the system is growing by leaps and bounds. Following the Hollywood branch’s popularity, Ben Gamla schools were opened in nearby Plantation (in 2009) and Miami Beach (in 2010). There is an independent after-school religious studies program available to students throughout the Ben Gamla network.
  
  However, even these schools’ success comes at a limited cost to local frum institutions. Sources familiar with the makeup of the school’s student body estimate that only about 5 percent of Ben Gamla students are from frum homes. Currently, the four-year-old network’s Jewish students are primarily either non-Orthodox, who would otherwise have attended public school or Conservative or non-denominational Jewish day schools; or special-needs students who require costly services not subsidized in private schools.

  The article is in this week's Mishpacha, which you can subscribe to here.
• Did you hear? The Maccabeats came out with a new video for Purim! (Yes, I heard about 100 times.) Admittedly, Uri Westrich put together another good one - great job sticking with themed jokes, like the sombrero and the dripping jelly.
• Chana realizes there is a difference between compassion and understanding, and publicity and support, when it comes to homosexuality in the Orthodox community.
• Finally! xkcd pokes fun at ads which say things like "Sales of up to 15% - or more!" So... you mean you have sales going on at various percentages below and above 15%? Why not just pick any number below the max percentage discount so it sounds bigger? Do people really suck this bad at math? This always frustrated me.
• Michael Medved has a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal decrying the propensity of Republicans to label Obama as a radical/extremist. This trait is especially true in the Orthodox Jewish community, and it doesn't do anybody any favors. Medved notes that realizing that Obama's views are rather mainstream Democrat is important if the GOP wishes to win the next election.
• Finally, an old neighbor from Cleveland who is absolutely hilarious has a number of videos doing various impressions of all types of people. Her latest is up on YouTube and has already picked up 11,000+ views, so I feel like it's okay to put it on the blog this time:
  
  
  I wish some of her other stuff would go up, too - she's just really, really funny.

Split In Two

There are two or perhaps three primary issues being battled over in Wisconsin. The first is the actual deal which public sector unions have vs. what the government wishes them to have; the second is whether they should be allowed to collectively bargain and negotiate the terms of their working in general; and the third (related to the second) is whether public sector employees should be allowed to unionize at all. Let's split them up simply and figure out what seems fair.

1) Pay & Benefits

The average Wisconsin public school teacher salary is $56,500. The average amount they receive in benefits $43,505, or 74.2 cents for each dollar earned. Employees of private companies average approximately 24.3 cents in fringe benefits. (To calculate yours, take the monetary value of your pension, health insurance, etc. which are provided by your work and divide that by your gross salary. My most recent job that was approximately 13 cents, and I had a great health care plan.)

Included in this is a regular pension of 13% (the 6.2% employee contribution is paid not by the employees but by the state), a second pension of 4.2% (all from the state), and a classified pension of 5.5% (employee contribution is contributed by the state not the employee). I'm highlighting this only because it seems incredibly silly that even the portions which are supposed to be employee-contributed are in fact state-contributed. There's more detail in the WSJ piece, but essentially, public sector employees receive almost as much in benefits as they do in pay - and over 3 times as much as typical private employees.

2) Collective Bargaining

Gov. Walker and most taxpayers would like to end the ability of public sector workers to collectively bargain - i.e., be able to negotiate as a group like they are currently able to do. As noted previously, FDR and other major Democratic leaders opposed the ability to do so; in fact, even AFL-CIO leader George Meany opposed this:

Why? Because unlike in the private economy, a public union has a natural monopoly over government services. An industrial union will fight for a greater share of corporate profits, but it also knows that a business must make profits or it will move or shut down. The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses.

This monopoly power, in turn, gives public unions inordinate sway over elected officials. The money they collect from member dues helps to elect politicians who are then supposed to represent the taxpayers during the next round of collective bargaining. In effect union representatives sit on both sides of the bargaining table, with no one sitting in for taxpayers. In 2006 in New Jersey, this led to the preposterous episode in which Governor Jon Corzine addressed a Trenton rally of thousands of public workers and shouted, "We will fight for a fair contract." He was promising to fight himself.

In addition, government union workers care not about protecting more workers, but protecting their sweet deal. They would rather allow jobs to be cut than give up their collective bargaining rights. That speaks volumes about the priorities of the union. It's unfair to taxpayers to be held hostage by the people who are meant to be working on their behalf. It would be like a cabbie being allowed to demand extra cash continuously while on a deserted highway - except you're not allowed to use any other cab. Without rules to stop such activity, the people who are supposed to work for the people end up owning the people.

3) Public Sector Unions

Firstly, some history:

In 1960, 31.9% of the private work force belonged to a union, compared to only 10.8% of government workers. By 2010, the numbers had more than reversed, with 36.2% of public workers in unions but only 6.9% in the private economy. 

In fact, until 1962, federal workers were not allowed to unionize at all. JFK at that point allowed some to organize, hoping to gain support for his next election. Perhaps more importantly, at the federal level, government union workers are not allowed to collectively bargain even today. The linked article suggests this is why President Obama quickly quieted on the subject and on his support for the unions: He did not want too much attention focused his way, particularly as he will certainly not allow this to change.

This fact allow belies the notion floated by some union supporters that taking away their collective bargaining rights will somehow cause union workers to be taken advantage of. Federal workers do quite nicely for themselves despite their lack of ability to bargain collectively, and it seems laughable to suggest that qualified government employees will somehow be stuck in horrible jobs that treat them poorly - it doesn't behoove the public to attempt to take advantage of people attempting to service their needs (an argument weak enough in 21st century corporations), and even if there were such a case, a qualified employee would certainly be able to move to the private sector with ease.

Perhaps a better way to explain this is by showing how a lack of protectionism for current public employees will essentially turn those positions into competitive ones, much like the private sector. Government can't simply take advantage, because people will simply not work for a bad employer. If there are too many teachers, then it's proper that some of them be cut. If that leads to poor education, it seems logical that voters would vote in a government that is willing to pay more for education, which will lead to better hiring practices. It would function just like the private sector, except with the added advantage of an entire population to answer to and whom can actually vote you out.

All in all, it seems quite clear that what the Democrats of yesterday realized needs to be learned by the politicians and people of today: Government unions cannot be allowed to have sway over the purse of government, as it leads to the economic destruction of the people whom government is meant to represent. Instead, it is these union members who should remember that they too are of the people, put in their positions by the people, and ultimately are there to be of service for the people - not only for themselves.

Setting Bad Precedents

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - Oath of the President of the United States

Most of us learned in elementary school that there are three branches of government in the United States: The Congress makes the laws; the President and the Executive Branch enforces those laws; and the Judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, determines if those laws are Constitutional. Within reason, each branch is supposed to respect the ideals of one another, as there are gray areas all over and there are often disagreements, depending on one's point of view. For example, members of Congress are not supposed to put forth bills without demonstrating their need and why they fall under the Constitutional rights of Congress to enact a law about, a point which the new Republican majority has tried to impress; and the Courts will often try to retain portions of a law even if other portions are found to be unconstitutional out of respect for the Congress.

Yesterday, the Obama administration made a very interesting and unprecedented decision: It decided that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed into law by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 1996, from constitutional challenges in the Courts. [Note: I don't believe the subject matter is particularly important for the legal discussion, on which (hat tip: Nephtuli) there are two very interesting posts with many interesting comments on Volokh Conspiracy (a top legal blog).] One of the most interesting parts of the administration's decision is that while they will not defend the law, they will however still enforce the law. This seems to be quite a split - some have argued that this makes sense, from the standpoint of the Executive Branch is required to enforce the laws of this country, and therefore even if they don't like a law, they can't simply not enforce it. Others have argued the reverse: The Executive Branch should be required to defend the law so long as it is on the books, but can choose to selectively enforce or not enforce a law as it sees fit. Still others have argued that they must do neither, that to enforce or defend but not the other is an inherent contradiction.

But Orin Kerr's piece points out the stickiest issue here: By the Executive Branch choosing to not defend a law passed by Congress, it essentially becomes an Executive power grab:

If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress’s power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.

The simplest example is perhaps coming up rather soon. If a Republican wins the Presidency in 2012, is there any doubt that they would exercise this new technique to not defend the health care bill should it come to the Supreme Court? The Department of Justice has a longstanding practice of defending all federal laws which are challenged in court, regardless of the President's views on the subject. To stop appears to be a horrible precedent to set, allowing the President in his capacity as Chief Executive to unilaterally determine which laws it will or will not defend (or enforce, though again that does not seem to be at issue here).

As an aside, Kerr makes an interesting analogy to President Bush's administration's defense of approaches that were certainly against the mainstream interpretation of law; however, at least those cases were regarding the powers of the Executive Branch and how far reaching those powers were (such as could they wiretap without a warrant people who had been in contact with foreign terrorists), and it is reasonable to allow the Executive Branch to attempt to determine the limits of its own powers. Here, President Obama's administration is applying its opinion to laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Clinton - without waiting for the Courts to decide the Constitutionality of the law, but making their own judgment and acting accordingly. This is essentially spitting in the face of Congress and precedent, that laws remain as such until such time that the Congress repeals or amends the law or the Courts determine it to be unconstitutional.

This is also not the first time President Obama has seemed to overstep his boundaries a bit. In last year's State of the Union address, he openly criticized a decision by the Supreme Court, prompting a reaction from Justice Alito and a bit of a negative backlash from all over, as no President had ever done such a thing before. For a President to almost interfere with another branch like that was shockingly bad precedent; yesterday's decision likely is as well. It appears that President Obama's administration is either unaware of the precedents it may be setting; uncaring due to the policies it feels are worth promoting despite the costs; or specifically creating such precedents to redesign the way the United States government functions and to transfer greater powers to the Executive Branch. None of those choices are particularly comforting, and we can only hope that the precedent is stopped and reversed as time passes.

Endangered Jobs & Needing Innovation

There is a very interesting (if obvious) editorial in today's Wall Street Journal by Andy Kessler, discussing whether people's jobs are "endangered species". In essence, Kessler is discussing how technology in particular is completely revamping the job market, making many jobs completely unnecessary while reducing the need for others. For instance, if you were a librarian or a stock trader ten years ago, there's far less of a need for your services anymore. Online trading and Google have eliminated the need and reduced the cost of performing those services. This change in the economics of our time matches up very well with the economics of the Jewish community.

Some of the best aspects of this overall economic change is that it forces innovation, competition, and ultimately, better prices and services. If one company cuts its costs, then it can keep the profits and that's it, or more likely, take those profits and expand the business, or reduce prices and pick up more business, the larger profits of which can then be kept or used to expand the business, or reduce prices and pick up more business... and so on. Even for those who have lost their jobs, while in the short-term this is very difficult (trust me), ultimately it allows them to be as innovative as possible, and seek out a way to shift into the new economy in an advantageous way. Scott Adams (yes, of Dilbert) had a great piece a few months back that noted The Perfect Stimulus is Bad Management: it pushes people to be innovative and creative, determine how best or better an industry or business can run, and pushes them as well to go do it.

At the same time, technology can't replace certain things (at least not yet). About a week ago, I was in a bank and thought that the bank manager's pitch to a customer was really interesting. She openly acknowledged that she couldn't beat another (online) bank's savings rate, a rate a full 1% higher than what they were offering - and yet still almost kept the customer from moving their money out. She shifted the banking industry into a customer service provider: "Would you be able to walk into the other bank and easily talk to a personal banker or manager, have someone to discuss your options with, etc.?" Banks traditionally are about helping people manage their money in the most efficient, money-making way possible; and yet now, this bank was offering customer service as a pitch over making money. But even then, it is about money to an extent: If someone has trouble with their bank and needs help, the instant access to a banker could easily make up for the 1% interest on a savings account - if it has $5,000 in it, that's $50 a year. There are certainly many people who would rather spend 15-30 minutes in a bank than 2 or more hours on a phone in exchange for $50 a year.

Sadly, while almost all businesses and most individuals embrace technology and its ability to cut down on costs, government is usually lagging well behind. Whenever it is suggested that a government move toward a more efficient system, there is an outcry of the number of government (or union, depending on the case) jobs which will be lost: Ignoring that essentially the argument is to continue forcing the people to subsidize unnecessary jobs and place everyone at a disadvantage. One of the best things President Obama has done is push for efficient use of technology, particularly in the medical fields, which have the thorniest privacy issues; hopefully this same push will be carried over to other areas as well. As Kessler notes as he breaks down the types of workers into types, "DMV employees and so many other government workers move information from one side of a counter to another without adding any value. Such sloppers are easy to purge with clever code." But by definition, government workers have no incentive to be efficient or to add economic value; merely to service what needs to get serviced while making sure to retain their own jobs and the jobs of their friends. There is almost no sense of "this is wasteful and must be eliminated" among government employees: It would not serve in their best interests to do so.

This theme translates over well to the Jewish community. While some places are working to cut costs, others work to increase revenues - stabilizing and protecting the jobs that exist within them. In the end, though, this can come back to hurt the community, through higher prices and less innovation: Tuition hikes; charities where large chunks of the money fund operations instead of the charity; etc. In addition, the formerly standard professions of Orthodox Jews, thanks to their perceived stability and reasonably good pay - doctors, lawyers, and accountants - are all being impacted negatively as technology and regulations make their jobs less needed or less well paid. We have far too many accounting and lawyer friends who are looking for jobs (or better jobs), and future doctors are already finding out that it's going to be far more difficult to pay off their loans. All of these factors point to a Jewish community which must start being innovative within itself (and fast), before the fallout severely impacts the infrastructure of the community. It's bad enough that living as an Orthodox Jew until now was so expensive and difficult for large portions of the community; but as things continue, unless we find a way to bring the costs of Orthodoxy way, way down we are going to find that Orthodox Jewry is no longer the middle-upper class life we like to believe it is (and hasn't been for a long time), but significantly down near the bottom after all is said and done.

EZ Reads 1/31/11

• Okay, so Federal Judge Vinson's ruling of ObamaCare as unconstitutional isn't an "easy" read, but it's really interesting to read through and follow not only the logical flow, but also the history (Judge Vinson seems joyful to give a bit of a Constitutional history lesson), analogies, and the way law flows and why it's important to set stop points.
• A Mother in Israel has an incredibly well-done video of how teens are impacted by the amount we're tuned into technology. It's a bit scary how real much of it really is.
• Neil discusses one of our favorite people in history, R' Salanter, in honor of his yahrtzeit.(The rollover on the title of this blog is a reference to my favorite quote, which is R' Salanter's.)
• Interesting piece on .299 and .300 hitters in baseball.
• An interesting pair of pieces at Dealbreaker and Lifehacker on first impressions and interviews, with Lifehacker noting how important first impressions are for interviews, while Dealbreaker discusses how some firms essentially interview people for a weekend to test their social acumen.
• Daled Amos asks if anyone's taking bets on when Obama's next speech in Cairo will be.

Funny (?) Question

It's one of those chain emails, received from my Dad, but I think it says it well:

Let me get this straight . . . .
We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and
fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,
by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

Presidential Kudos

President Obama spoke last night at the memorial for the victims of the attack in Tuscon, Arizona. I was able to watch most of it and read through the entire speech online, and he was fantastic, even if the forum ended up seeming a bit... pep rally-ish, as someone put it. If there were any Presidential moment that someone such as he was made for, it was this - with even the concern that he doesn't give off emotional depth proving to be untrue, at least on this occasion. He thankfully also implicitly chastised those who blame this on political debate, much like his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was distraught (as mentioned on Best of the Web here) when a Newsweek piece utilized an old Emanuel line to argue for capitalizing on the tragedy for political gain.

On top of that, the President is finally seeming to take heed of the results of this past Congressional election, learning from his mistakes and working toward reshaping his White House staff. Karl Rove (!) heaps praise on Obama and his interim advisor Pete Rouse today in his weekly WSJ article, which is obviously saying quite a bit. To see that Obama is willing to change is quite refreshing, and hopefully he'll work closely with the GOP members such as Paul Ryan to actively cut spending as well, though this seems less likely at the moment. Certainly, though, these are steps in the right direction.

Quantitative Easing Explained (Hilarious)

Hat tip: Dad

This is great, and right on the money (no pun intended). Once you get through 20 seconds you'll love it.

Whoops

Government-controlled health care, coming soon to the whole country! Hope it works better than in one of the smallest states:

This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.
The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Governor Mitt Romney and Beacon Hill passed universal coverage in 2006, and Mr. Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.
Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits. Three of largest four—Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health—posted operating losses in 2009. In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims. It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies. So until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.
A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers—under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments—resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in: Mr. Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs).