Commentary – Last week, Former President Bill Clinton came to town to speak and rally people in favor of four Democratic Congressional Candidates. Few people noted or cared that the color guard at this event was performed by firefighters of the Davis Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3494.
It is perhaps ironic that, in recent years, the firefighters have become more influential outside of their own city political circles than inside them. After dominating Davis politics for the better part of the last decade and parlaying that influence into 3% at 50, four firefighters on an engine, and a massive 36% pay increase from 2005 to 2009, the firefighters could not give away their endorsement in the last two elections, let alone buy an election within the city of Davis.
However, the same is not true at the legislative level. On February 23, 2011, the California Professional Firefighters gave Assemblymember Mariko Yamada a $1,000 check. They followed that up a few months later with another check, this time for $1,500.This year, they donated another $1,000 to Mariko Yamada in February and on March 29 they gave another $2,253.30 in non-monetary contributions.
For good measure, the same California Professional Firefighters gave Senator Lois Wolk $1000 and she received another $1000 from the CDF Firefighters.
Congressman John Garamendi was among the organizers of the Clinton event – his staff, along with the Davis College Democrats, were running the show last week.
In one of his first public speeches in Davis last year, there was John Garamendi at the Democratic Bean Feed singing the praises of the firefighters.
Congressman Garamendi is a longtime supporter of the California Professional Firefighters.
A few years back he said: “The California Professional Firefighters proved again in last year’s Special Election, when they get involved in an election, they win. The firefighters work hard, and perhaps most importantly their judgment on important issues commands the trust of their neighbors, friends and families. The CPF endorsement is a big boost to our effort and a great way to start the election year.”
We also found an interesting quote from Lou Paulson, President of the California Professional Firefighters, where he said, “Not knowing where to turn, I called John Garamendi – the former Insurance Commissioner of California and currently a U.S. Congressman…” In that case he was recommending a disaster recovery consulting organization, but the quote which later describes Mr. Garamendi as his “friend” illustrates the nature of their relationship.
Rich Rifkin devoted his column last week to Proposition 32, arguing forcefully about the corrupting influence of public employee unions.
While Proposition 32 is too flawed and too unilateral for me to support, I am increasingly of the belief that the cozy relationship between politicians and various interest groups is detrimental to the public good.
So, while I do not go as far as Mr. Rifkin, I too am concerned that our Assemblymember Mariko Yamada has been carrying bills written by her donors, the firefighters.
In my estimation, the firefighters and the policies that they have pushed locally, from 3% at 50 to four men on an engine, to leading the way on the employee salary explosion of the last decade, have greatly contributed to the fact that the city of Davis is not out of the woods yet with regard to the waves of municipal bankruptcy.
In 2011, it was Union President Bobby Weist who led the opposition to the city’s budget cuts. It is Union President Bobby Weist along with other bargaining units who have held out from signing new MOUs that would help the city fix its structural problems.
It was the influence of the firefighters that helped force the city to cover up for their own wrongdoing in 2008, until this year when the truth finally came about.
As Rich Rifkin passionately argues in his piece: “The corruption brought on by special interest money is not limited to our state. It’s why our streets in Davis are not being maintained. It’s why Davis residents owe more than $150 million to city retirees for their lucrative pensions and medical plans.”
“I first realized that the Davis City Council had been corrupted by campaign contributions in 2005,” Mr. Rifkin writes. “I was perusing the firefighters’ new contract, the one where we gave them a 36 percent raise in base salary and a load of impossibly expensive benefits, when I discovered the union hour bank.”
Mr. Rifkin goes on to explain: “A city staffer explained that the union bank for firefighters is money we give to union president Bobby Weist for the hours he does union business. If Capt. Weist travels out of town to a union convention to learn how to extract more cash from the people of Davis, we pay him for that time.”
As the Vanguard would discover – the city at that time made no accounting for how the money would actually be used and the majority of the pay went to Mr. Weist himself.
As Mr. Rifkin notes, “When the fire contract came up again in 2009, I asked a member of the City Council (who had been ‘endorsed’ by the firefighters) why it was so unreasonable to expect reforms, including extirpating union bank hours?”
The response was: “Rich, you don’t understand. The employees won’t ever give back what they worked so hard to get in the collective bargaining process!”
This is now among the perks that the union was able to insert into their contracts over the years, that the city is now fighting – probably to the point of impasse – to undo.
The Vanguard reported over the summer on AB 2451, which would have eliminated the 4½ year statute of limitations on work-related death benefits for public safety employees who die of diseases presumed by law to be job-related. Opponents fear that there would be no limitation under the law “on the period of time between the employee’s exposure to and presumable death from heart disease, cancer, tuberculosis or blood borne pathogens.”
The Sacramento Bee issued two editorials in the last week in opposition. They argue that because the bill removes the statute of limitations from job-related survivor death benefits for peace officers and firefighters, a firefighter could retire in 2012 at age 53, and 25 years later they could die of a heart attack.
Writes the Bee: “Although there is a presumption in current law that heart ailments in firefighters and cops are job-related, there had been no evidence of a heart condition for either retiree before the fatal attack.”
They add: “Their deaths occurred well beyond the 4 1/2-years-after-injury statute of limitations that governs job-related death benefit eligibility today. Nonetheless, under this bill their survivors could claim a death benefit worth a quarter of a million dollars at minimum.”
Rich Rifkin is among those who believe that the bill would have had a devastating impact on municipalities.
Assemblymember Yamada was a key supporter of the bill – she helped to pass it in the Assembly before Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it.
Writes Mr. Rifkin: “Had it not been vetoed, AB 2451 would have bankrupted every city and every county in California.”
He adds, “Driving Davis and Yolo County into insolvency apparently did not matter as much to Yamada as the three large checks that the California Professional Firefighters gave her this year.”
The firefighters know they are losing the battles at the local level, but they are still fighting at the state level. Eventually, Jerry Brown stood up to the firefighters by passing the sweeping pension reform and vetoing destructive legislation like AB 2451.
But that has not stopped the firefighters from trying to buy influence statewide, giving more than $550,000 over the last two years to the state Democratic Party, separate and distinct from the money to individual politicians.
I believe it is time to stop this madness before draconian measures like Proposition 32 pass. The problem with AB 32 is that it represents a one-side solution to a multi-sided problem. The problem of influence extends beyond that of public employee unions. It would therefore eliminate the main fundraising tool of unions, but not of businesses.
The effort is being bankrolled by Republican donors, conservative activists and business executives – all people who would benefit politically from this problem.
“People are ready to believe that … corporations are spending this money to rig the system more for them,” said Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster.
That is not the solution to this problem.
Instead, I believe that we should do the same thing at the state level that we did locally – pressure the politicians to make them believe they have more to lose by taking that money than to gain.
So to Assemblymember Yamada, Senator Wolk and Congressman Garamendi – does it matter to you that you are accepting money from groups that have put the finances of Davis in serious jeopardy?
The polls show that Proposition 32 is not likely to pass – it is too transparently one-sided. But if this continues, it is only a matter of time before the voters finally get fed up and put forth a more even-handed measure that will cut off the money flow. Better to self-regulate and make the issue irrelevant.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David wrote:
> Firefighters Union Heavily Influences Local Representatives
Will tomorrows headline be “Sky is Blue”? It is not just the firefighters ALL public unions “Heavily Influence” local representatives.
For years in America big business has used political influence politicians and make tons of money (for example see DuPont in WW I, Brown & Root during the Cold War and Halliburton during the Iraq war).
In the last 30 years the public unions have learned that bribing (what they call perfectly legal campaign contributions) public officials is a great way to get a lot of cash from taxpayers.
In recent years we have a new crop of (mostly Democratic) companies (like Solyndra, Amonix, and Fisker) that have seen the billions the (mostly Republican) firms have made from the “war on terror” and are using the new “war on global warming” to suck billions of private money in to their pockets.
This is a revealing article, because you see the problem, but your ideology doesn’t let you find a solution (Prop 32).
Because a large number of voters share your disdain of [quote] Republican donors, conservative activists and business executives[/quote], Prop 32 probably won’t pass.
And as a result, the needy and helpless of society will suffer as limited government resources go to further boost the corrupt unions.
I don’t see much difference in the end between the Vanguard, Mariko Yamada, the California Professional Firefighters and Bobby Weist. When it comes down to it, you all stand together against reform.
I don’t understand why we are paying for someone to attend union conferences and activities. Shouldn’t the union cover that? Also, are we also paying overtime for someone to cover the shift of the absent employee while they are off attending these conferences?
Ryan Kelly wrote:
> I don’t understand why we are paying for
> someone to attend union conferences
> and activities.
Let me help you understand… to run for office you need a lot of money, once in office you need a lot of money to run for re-election so you need to give things to the people that give you money so they give you even more money. Because they are giving taxpayer money not their own money elected officials have no problem giving millions to someone that gives them thousands (great ROI for every bribe/campaign contribution)so the donors give even more and get even more back…
For a couple of reasons I don’t expect that the voters in California are wise enough to pass Prop 32: first, most controversial propositions that make it onto our ballot fail; and second, a majority of voters in our state favor left-liberal positions, including support for the corrupting influences of organized labor.
What interests me is that in all of the columns and editorials I have read in opposition to Prop 32, I have not yet read anything persuasive that there is something unjust about it. David Greenwald says 32 is “too flawed and too unilateral for me to support.” But he has absolutely no logic or facts to back up that position. He is simply regurgitating the empty rhetoric of the union smokescreen.
If you go on The Enterprise website and look at my column on 32, there are a few posters who did not agree with me. Look at their vacuous arguments. They cannot say anything remotely logical about why 32 is bad or how it will bring harm to our state.
It’s quite interesting to me that the left movement, Occupy Wall Street! or known here as get pepper-sprayed and then get a free education!, makes its case that the top 1 percent of income earners in our country has too much influence in our politics relative to their small size. Well, why not extend that argument to the unions. They run our state. They make all public works projects much more expensive than they would be if we had competitive bidding. The public employees get benefits that are unheard of in the private sector. Yet union households are only a small fraction of total households in our state. These unions can generate $50 million in a heartbeat to win a campaign. Is that not a good example of a small, rich clique using its big money to defeat the interests of the majority?
It’s also a bit ironic that there is little support for Prop 32 at UC Davis, since one of the most powerful unions in California, the prison guards, have essentially pushed all the policies over the last 30 years which have stripped higher education of its budget, in order to pay those guards hundreds of thousands of dollars a year each. Yet the kiddies who rant and rave about Wall Street bankers have no interest at all in protesting the influence of the CCPOA on their political party?
It’s clear that David is anti Davis Fire Union. David, what unions are OK and how do their tactics differ from the Davis Fire Union?
Rifkin, you’re being entirely too logical. We’re supposed to vote no because the SEIU and the teacher’s union tell us to. Most of the commercials I see from the unions just say “it’s not what it seems”. Well I just read my voter’s pamphlet and it seems pretty good to me. Anyway, I’m voting for anything that the SEIU and teacher’s union are against, that’s a good enough reason for me to know it must be good for the rest of us and the state.
“What interests me is that in all of the columns and editorials I have read in opposition to Prop 32, I have not yet read anything persuasive that there is something unjust about it. David Greenwald says 32 is “too flawed and too unilateral for me to support.” But he has absolutely no logic or facts to back up that position. He is simply regurgitating the empty rhetoric of the union smokescreen.”
Rich: It’s very simple – I’m simply unwilling to pass legislation that deals with only part of the problem and disadvantages one party (the party I’m more likely to support) but not the other party.
“I don’t see much difference in the end between the Vanguard, Mariko Yamada, the California Professional Firefighters and Bobby Weist. When it comes down to it, you all stand together against reform. “
I don’t think that’s accurate, I don’t oppose reform, I oppose this reform. I supported pension reform.
“It’s also a bit ironic that there is little support for Prop 32 at UC Davis, since one of the most powerful unions in California, the prison guards, have essentially pushed all the policies over the last 30 years which have stripped higher education of its budget, in order to pay those guards hundreds of thousands of dollars a year each””
There is nothing ironic about it. The consideration you list is overridden by the fact that most people at UCD are Democrats and you cannot convince me or anyone else that this proposition wasn’t intended to disproportionately cut off the money to Democrats and electorally harm them.
Come up with a more equitable solution and I’ll consider it
“It’s clear that David is anti Davis Fire Union. David, what unions are OK and how do their tactics differ from the Davis Fire Union?”
Breaking news… J/K
The difference between the firefighters and other unions in my eyes are the following:
1. the FFers controlled Davis City Government for a decade
2. the FFers nearly bankrupted the city with 3% at 50, four on an engine, and massive wage increases
3. unlike other union members ship, the ffers make around $150 to $200 K in total compensation.
I used to work for a union. The membership primarily made between $20 and $30K per year. They could lobby government, do actions, but they did not run a government like the Davis ffers (and other locals in the CPF union).
Rich wrote:
> It’s quite interesting to me that the left movement,
> Occupy Wall Street! or known here as get pepper-sprayed
> and then get a free education!, makes its case that the
> top 1 percent of income earners in our country has too
> much influence in our politics relative to their small
> size. Well, why not extend that argument to the unions.
The left (and the right) have done a great job convincing “their base” that even though they are robbing the typical voter blind things will be even worse if the “other guys” get more power and/or influence.
It is interesting that David (and others on the left) seem to be upset about firefighter pay and unions, but not the pay and unions of our other “public servants”. I wonder if this is because most firefighters are meat eating gas guzzling 4×4 driving hunters who tend (who think Rush Limbaugh a “moderate”)?
” Well I just read my voter’s pamphlet and it seems pretty good to me.”
Of course it seems pretty good to you Rusty – you are a republican, you want to electorally disadvantage Democrats.
Rifkin:[i]”…a majority of voters in our state favor left-liberal positions, including support for the corrupting influences of organized labor.”[/i]
I think this is true; but perplexing given the facts.
I was talking to a friend last night about the past popularity of that old TV program “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”. Today it seems people would just be made angry watching it.
It used to be a part of the American psyche that being rich was something most of us could do if we just found our niche, took risks, worked 16-hour days for several years, and had some luck. Many of us looked at the requirement for achieving this level of economic success, and told ourselves we didn’t want to pay the price for that life. However, this decision did not translate into class anger. Now it does.
Today it seems that the dream has shifted to wanting a cushy high-paying government job with a fat pension. Or, dream of not working much at all but have government pay for all needs and some wants. Or, dream of leading a less-material and less-stressful life while demonizing those that strive and attain success.
Frankly, I see the root of this change being the Baby Boomers. These children of the Greatest Generation – apparently made so perpetually angry about the attention they did not get growing up – have made it absolute that their kids would not be treated the same way. We have in fact eliminated so much challenge and struggle in life for our kids that we have done them a great disservice. We have corrupted the lesson for what it takes to go out and secure and protect that Great American Life. They don’t have the coping skills for delayed gratification and incremental development. They want it now… because their parents trained them that this is the way it should be.
Once a nation of leaders; we have grown a larger population of followers. And as followers, a good union job, and/or a deep and wide government safety net, seems like a sweet deal.
I don’t hold out much hope for California. I think it will continue this trend of a shrinking pool of enterprising leaders replaced by growing population of entitled followers. The aggravating thing about this trend is that we have copious evidence around us to estimate our future decline. Yet, we are powerless to change course.
I just can’t see anything wrong with this:
If approved, Proposition 32 will:
Ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates
Ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them
Ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics
No exemptions, no loopholes
Let me ask you this question: in your estimation, which party will be most advantaged if Prop 32 passes?
When is our city going to address the four firefighter issue? It seems like a no brainer to go to three. From the posts I’ve seen on here I’m sure the council will have overwhelming support of the public to make this much needed move. Are they waiting for the report? If so, why have other communities been able to go to three and not us?
Here’s the Bee’s analysis of the problem with Prop 32 – before you attack the Bee, the Bee is no friend to public employee unions…
[quote]Proposition 32 would ban unions and corporations from using automatic paycheck deductions to raise money for political purposes. That might sound reasonable, except that it’s loaded.
Unions rely on payroll deductions, not corporations. Unions would be restricted from raising money from their 2.5 million members, but corporations and rich individuals could continue spreading money around the Capitol and city halls.
Proposition 32 has bright and shiny provisions designed to lure unwary voters. It claims to ban union and corporate donations directly to candidates. In fact, it might limit some corporate campaign money, but only on the margins.
Corporations, like unions, increasingly dump their millions into supposedly independent campaigns to support and oppose candidates.
Proposition 32 would do nothing to curb independent expenditures.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/23/4843939/endorsements-proposition-32-power.html#storylink=cpy%5B/quote%5D
“When is our city going to address the four firefighter issue?”
The last I checked, the report is due out perhaps the first week of November. No one knows for sure what is in it, but I have been told that there is said to be a way to move forward and reduce the number of firefighters on an engine.
David, being Republican as you stated, I’m a union member who was forced to give money in dues for the union to use as it wishes on political campaigns. Being that the union always backs Democrat candidates and issues I had a real problem with that. If I chose to be a political dues objector my union would post your name monthly on the bulletin board for all other members to see and subject you to scrutiny. Do you think that’s fair? I can imagine how you’d react if that were turned around and Democrats were basically forced to give to GOP causes or be subject to derision.
[b]David:[/b] [i]”I’m simply unwilling to pass legislation that deals with only part of the problem …”[/i]
Here is what the problem in California is: The overwhelming majority of money given directly to candidates and indirectly for candidates or causes comes from well-healed groups which give that money because they stand to make money from policy decisions.
Here is how Prop 32 restrains that:
First, “The measure prohibits corporations and unions from making political contributions to candidates. That is, they could not make contributions (1) directly to candidates or (2) to committees that then make contributions to candidates. This prohibition, however, does not affect a corporation or union’s ability to spend money on independent expenditures.”
Second, “The measure prohibits government contractors (including public sector labor unions with collective bargaining contracts) from making contributions to elected officials who play a role in awarding their contracts. Specifically, government contractors could not make contributions to these elected officials from the time their contract is being considered until the date their contract expires.”
The contention that Prop 32 “deals with only part of the problem” (see: Greenwald above) is entirely vacuous.
[b]David:[/b] [i]”… and disadvantages one party (the party I’m more likely to support) but not the other party.”[/i]
This is a meaningless complaint, given the fact that every single statewide officeholder is a Democrat, that the overwhelming majority of the members of our Congressional delegation are Democrats, that the vast majority of the members of our state senators are Democrats, that the strong majority of the members of the state assembly are Democrats, and that due to redistricting, all of these pro-Democratic seats have expanded. Further, the minority party no longer has any power to affect the state budget and that, given demographic trends, California is only likely to grow more and more Democratic in the coming decades.
As such, even if this reform on balance harms the Democrats more than it harms the Republicans, and I agree that will be the case because the unions own the Democratic Party, it is impossible to argue that change will give any real power to the minority.
Further, because the labor unions are so self-interested, the public-interest agenda of the left which requires public money (such as protection of the public lands, waters and air, and funding for higher education, and funding for public health and mental health, and so on) is harmed by that union power. What that union power has done is to rob the public interests and the poor groups in need of support of money in order to fund luxurious retirements for people like our erstwhile fire chief and one of our current Yolo County supervisors from Davis. So if you prefer the employee groups continue to run the Democrts than to have enough money to pay for mental health services for the poor, then vote against Prop 32. But there remains no logical argument to support that position.
“who was forced to give money in dues for the union to use as it wishes on political campaigns.”
I’m fairly sure people can opt out.
David:
“I’m fairly sure people can opt out.”
Obviously you didn’t read all of my post.
My default position for propositions is to vote no. Then I look at whether its purpose, and from that I look at who proposed and promoted it, and who opposes it. On all of those counts, this one fails my innate skepticism.
When good-government groups like Common Cause oppose something, I tend to give that some credence. If the NFIB and Howard Jarvis groups support something, I’m instantly dubious.
So I’ll read this one more carefully, but I’m likely to vote no.
I do support campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, Citizens United has thrown the whole system wide open and needs to be dealt with first. I do not want to pass something that has unbalanced effects.
Rusty: So perhaps one answer would be to preclude the behavior you object to?
David wrote:
> I’m fairly sure people can opt out.
As a former union member that was forced to join I can tell you that you might be able to “technically” opt out, but why bother if you still need to pay close to 100% of the union dues the “members” pay. If you push hard you can get a “tiny” reduction in your dues for the (~5% of dues at the time) that they say they spend on “political activities”.
Rusty wrote:
> I chose to be a political dues objector my union
> would post your name monthly on the bulletin board
> for all other members to see and subject you to
> scrutiny.
In the unions I belonged to they would not post your name, but they would beat the crap out of you and give you a lot of cheap shots (tripping, kidney shots and blows to the head from behind) if you decided to (in their words) “f with the union”…
“
As a former union member that was forced to join I can tell you that you might be able to “technically” opt out, but why bother if you still need to pay close to 100% of the union dues the “members” pay. If you push hard you can get a “tiny” reduction in your dues for the (~5% of dues at the time) that they say they spend on “political activities”.”
I thought the complaint here was having one’s dues going to a political campaign that one didn’t agree with. That seemed to be rusty’s complaint.
[i]”When good-government groups like Common Cause oppose something, I tend to give that some credence.”[/i]
The chairman Common Cause is Robert Reich, who is on the left edge of the Democratic Party. Its board, which selected Reich, is mostly left of center, including people like Patricia Schroeder and some Hollywood liberals (Richard Dreyfuss, Leonard Hill) and others of similar minds.
I am not pointing out the ideology of the Board to say those folks cannot contribute to the discussion on public policy issues. However, I think the current slant of Common Cause suggests it is in the Democratic camp.
[quote] I’m simply unwilling to pass legislation that deals with only part of the problem and disadvantages one party (the party I’m more likely to support) but not the other party.[/quote]
So keep corrupt practices in effect because they favor your political group. Irrespective of whether they hurt the needy.
Ok, that was honest.
J.R. When I read the bill it looks fair to both parties. I think the only bill that will make Democrats happy is one where only unions and individuals are able to donate to political causes.
“When I read the bill it looks fair to both parties. “
Yeah exactly the point that the Bee makes – it looks fair until you drill into the numbers and the impact and realize it’s one-sided.
Look, we can make this simple – figure out the actual numbers and then we have a starting point to debate. Right now all you are doing is looking at language without regard to how much from each side would be eliminated.
Meanwhile Citizens United allows Sheldon Adelson to give Mitt Romney supporting Super Pacs tens of millions.
“It used to be a part of the American psyche that being rich was something most of us could do if we just found our niche, took risks, worked 16-hour days for several years, and had some luck. “
Having been “a part of the American psyche” does not mean that a concept has ever been a true reflection of reality. It used to be “a part of the American psyche that blacks were inferior to whites and that women were inferior to men, so much so that we did not have the vote. Neither of these positions are likely to be held, at least publicly by anyone today. It has always been the American myth, but never the reality, that anyone could amass great wealth and power. True, an occasional individual rises out of poverty to achieve greatness. This is far from the norm. And to pretend that this is due only to individual choice or lack of initiative is mistaken at best and duplicitous at it’s worst. You will not convince me that the baby who is born (through no fault of its own) to a crack or meth addicted mom has the same chance as a Romney or Kennedy.
Nor will you convince me that a poor child, even with the best intentioned parents working two or three jobs just to feed clothe and house the family has the same chances. Past responses to this criticism of our system from those on the right tend to be platitudes about how
“you can’t save everyone” or “life is not fair” which totally ignores the fact that we do have enough wealth in our society to provide a much more even playing field. What we do not have is the will, or the decency, to be willing to consider our countrymen as part of our extended family and treat them accordingly.
The problem as I see it with Prop 32 is its shortsightedness. Republicans are quick to point out union corruption, but fail to acknowledge that very large amounts of money pouring into the political system from any source have the potential to be corrupting.
Rich pointed out in a previous thread that the distinction he made was that unions political contributions were used to directly enrich union members and leadership. It is ironic to me that he, and others do not seem to acknowledge that winning political office is in and of itself a huge personal payoff in terms of power, if not immediate acquisition of more money. It is my contention that a candidate like Meg Whitman does not have the goal of enriching herself with more money ( of which she has no further need) but rather with power. I do not see a substantive difference in terms of “corruption” between seeking more money and seeking more individual power. If you do Rich, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
[i]” I do not see a substantive difference in terms of “corruption” between seeking more money and seeking more individual power. If you do Rich, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.”[/i]
First, I agree with you that when a very wealthy person, be it Meg Whitman or Mitt Romney or John Kerry or Michael Bloomberg or many others like them, runs for political office, the candidate is driven by a desire for power. In most cases, whether you agree with the philosophy of that sort of an office-seeker who is already very wealthy, those folks want to use that power to make life better for others or for society at large, not to further enrich themselves. Mike Bloomberg certainly did not spend tens of millions of dollars from his fortune to become Mayor of New York in order to add to his bank accounts.
Of course, if you disagree with their philosophy, then what policies they enact “to make life better for others” will either fail or will make life better only for people you personally think do not need or deserve such help. And by succeeding in enacting their philosophy and by holding an esteemed office, the rich governor or or senator or president or mayor feels like he is bringing a measure of glory and importance on himself.
Yet there is a huge difference between that approach and that of folks who are involved in politics in order to enrich themselves. The latter group alone is taking money from the rest of us and pocketting it. That money they are taking is a limited resource. It cannot be replaced.
If we give the firefighters an additional, undeserved death benefit of $300,000 each, as Mariko Yamada’s recent vote for AB 2451 would have done, every city and county in our state would have been out millions of dollars. Those millions are now going for things like repairing streets and maintaining parks and immunizing poor children and keeping libraries open. The corruption of the firefighters would have left those streets and parks unmaintained, those children without needed shots and would have closed libraries.
It’s the same thing with defense contractors. If we buy billions of dollars in new Air Force jets that do not add to our national defense but mostly just line the pockets of the companies that build the planes, those of us who pay taxes will be poorer for it and we will not have that money to fund other priorities (say Medicare for the elderly) or new ports or interstate highways which serve the common good.
By contrast, if a Teddy Kennedy, who was worth about $163 million*, used his fortune to win office in order to bring glory on himself and to have power, the common good is not harmed in any way by that. Again, if you think the philosophy of the left was bad for our country, you should not have wanted Kennedy in office. But his grab for power in and of itself does not steal from the commonweal the way the corruption of special interests always does.
*From Slate ([url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/08/ted_kennedy_rip.html[/url]): [i]”In 2007, (Senator Kennedy’s) net worth was estimated to be as high as $163 million, based on campaign records.”[/i]
Rich
Thanks for taking the time to post such a thoughtful explanation of your viewpoint.
I would however, also like to address the issue of over generalization. I am quite sure that every union organizer and administrator is not corrupt in the sense that they are only seeking to enrich themselves. I am also certain that not all politicians who accept money from any given group are then “owned” by that group. I am quite sure that at least some of these folks carefully consider the issues and then choose to do what they genuinely believe is the “right” thing according to their own conscience. I believe that this is also likely to be true for many of the extremely wealthy who have the option of using their own money to finance their campaigns.
It is largely because I do not believe that virtue lies exclusively on either side of the idealogic divide in our country, that I would favor exclusively public funding of all political campaigning including disallowing the activity of PACs. What Proposition 32 does it to tilt the playing field towards those who tend towards one ideological point of view. Whether or not that is its intent, that will be the outcome. Once one knows that there is an inherent unfairness built into a proposal, I think that regardless of one’s initial good motivation, one is obliged to reject that option and seek another. For example, I would be perfectly content with a proposal which limited all campaign contributions to a fixed amount of public funds, or which did not limit funding, but collected into one sum to be divided equally between candidates similar to suggestions that you have made in the past.
With regard to the “death benefit” this is an area where I suspect that an evidence based solution has not really been established.
It seems to me ( granted without researching the issue) that 4+ years is definitely too short a timeline for some exposure related illnesses, and that essentially forever is not only too long medically as well as financially speaking.
I would like to cite one example from my area of expertise. Based on the doubling time of growth of a typical breast cancer, the estimate is that the cancer will have been present for around 8 years by the time it becomes detectable with our current technology. If this is true for other kinds of cancers and other diseases which are exposure related based on one’s work environment, then 4 + years would be a completely arbitrary and demonstrably inadequate time frame. My question would be, does anyone know what evidence the timeline was based on historically, and on what evidence were the proposed changes made ? If we do not know the answers to these questions, then our postings are nothing more than our personal opinions based on our own world view.
[i]”I am quite sure that every union organizer and administrator is not corrupt in the sense that they are only seeking [b]to enrich[/b] themselves.”[/i]
Semantic point: [i]to enrich[/i] means ‘to increase the wealth (or income of)’; I don’t use it to mean ‘to make someone into a millionaire.’
The reason a union exists, all unions, is to enrich themselves at the expense of their employers. They believe, correctly so usually, that by acting collectively they can get more money* for themselves than they could by acting individually.
(*Note: by ‘money’ I mean all wages and benefits and improved working conditions which represent a real cost to the employer.)
To contend that unions are not acting to enrich themselves is simply wrong. You may, however, believe that such enrichment is justified. I certainly think it is in cases where the employers are in a position of power and due to that position have the ability to capture a disproportionate share of the value being added by their workers.
Let me take a step back and explain something about labor economics to you which you likely understand already but probably have not given much specific thought to: How much a worker can make over time is capped by his productivity.
If, for example, a worker’s skills and efforts and so on generate $15 per hour for his employer, [i]the most that employer can pay the worker would be $15 per hour.[/i] If the employee required/demanded $16, the employer would be losing money every hour that the employee worked. So the employer, in that case, would be better off firing the employee than paying that wage. As such, any amount between $0 per hour and $15 per hour represents a wage where it is either profitable for the employer to keep that employee or at worst it is a break-even proposition.
The question, therefore, is how much of the $15 per hour of value added by the employee should go to the employee and how much of it should go to the employer? In most competitive situations, there is (over time) a relatively competitive market for labor, which gives nearly all, but not all, of that $15 to the employee. The reason for this is because if an employer offered, say, $9 per hour, there will be another employer who will offer $11 or $12 or $14 to attract away the employee who is adding $15.
The other employer will do this because if he gets the person for $12 per hour, he is better off by $3 per hour than he would be by not employing that worker at all (as happens when the worker stays with the company he is now working for).
Unfortunately for workers, not all labor markets are quite so competitive. In many cases, a worker’s skills are company specific, even in cases where the employee is highly educated and skilled. (Think of a computer programmer who specializes in a computer language or program only used by one big company.)
That means that a given worker may be worth up to $15 per hour for his company, but he would be worth, say, only $7.50 to other employers, because he cannot transfer his skills so easily. And in such a case, the employer has market power. The employer can, in effect, screw over such a worker by paying him, say, $8 or $9 per hour, and no other employers would bid that worker away.
In a case like that, the worker would be clearly better off if he had a union helping him and other employees to collectively bargain with his employer, demanding a wage around, say, $14 per hour.
There is another type of labor market where employees also can get screwed: a monopoly. Imagine a fisherman in an isolated community where one company owns all the fishing licenses; or a lumberjack in a rural area where one company owns all the logging rights; or a guy who repairs high-power transmission lines where one company owns all the power lines. In cases like these, the workers only hope to gain their fair share of the value they are adding is to bargain collectively.
The situation is different in a couple of respects when we are talking about public employee unions or unions where the money which goes to the workers comes from the taxpayers through public contracts.
First, how much one of these workers can make over time is [u]not[/u] capped by his productivity. A city could, for example, employ someone who is worth $20 per hour and that person could be paid $50 or $80 per hour.
Second, because the employer is not spending his own money–he is spending the money of the taxpayers–he does not have the same incentives a private employer has to drive a hard bargain with his employees.
Yet a unionized worker in the public sector has every incentive that the unionized worker has in the private sector to enrich himself in his contract. As such, there is a big imbalance in interests when public employees are unionized. (It was for this very reason that Franklin Roosevelt opposed public employees from being in unions**.)
**FDR quote: [i]“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …”[/i]
The final question is why public employees finance the campaigns of politicians? The answer, of course, is to enrich themselves. They want in office people who are like Mariko Yamada, people who will take thousands of dollars from them and give them back millions of dollars from the public’s coffers.
MEDS: [i]”I am also certain that not all politicians who accept money from any given group are then “owned” by that group.”[/i]
That is a fair point. Each politician deserves to be scrutinized individually. If one takes money from the firefighters and then turns around and does not vote the way the firefighters want him to every time, it is fair to say that individual is not ‘owned’ by the unions which tried to buy influence.
We have a good example of that in Davis: Sue Greenwald. She was put in office in at first with huge financial backing from the firefighters’ union. And at first she did what they wanted. Sue voted in favor of the massive increase in pensions for them. But after a while, Sue’s conscience got the best of her and she began to question the corruption in our fire contracts and in how the city was dealing with that union. So when her next election came along, the union no longer gave her their money. They bought instead Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, and the fire union fought vigorously to get Sue out of office. (Later, the plumbers and pipefitters and the electricians and other unions joined the fight to remove Sue, and they were successful.) The lesson was learned by the next group who took the firefighters’ money: vote our way and life will be good for you. Vote against us and you will be destroyed.
MEDS: [i]”I am quite sure that at least some of these folks carefully consider the issues and then choose to do what they genuinely believe is the “right” thing according to their own conscience.”[/i]
Again, if they do that, the unions will make them pay a huge price for showing conscience. Take Lois Wolk, for example, who bucked the firefighters by opposing the bankruptcy bill they wanted. (Their bill, co-authored by Yamada, was designed to make bankruptcy too costly and to take too long to ever file, so that no bankruptcy judge could ever re-write the budget busting contracts cities have with firefighters.) Lois paid a severe price for doing ‘the right thing.’ The firefighters had their boy, Darrell Steinberg remove Lois from all of her important committee assignments in response. Lois was the chair of the local government committee and the firefighters removed her entirely from that committeee to punish her for bucking them. A few years later, when a new bankruptcy bill, admittedly less bad than the first one, came up for a vote, Wolk voted just as the firefighters wanted. She learned the lesson of what ‘doing the right thing’ causes.
I am curious, Rich, what you think the outcome of Prop. 32 would be in terms of political campaign financing. I think there is a tendency to overstate the impact of these things, and my guess is unions would find ways to acquire funding and promote their causes. But what impact would this have, and to what extent do you think the argument that the effects are one-sided might have merit?
[i]” Rich, what you think the outcome of Prop. 32 would be in terms of political campaign financing.”[/i]
Since 32 will ban government contractors and the unions from corrupting the process by giving to candidates (directly and indirectly), I think candidates for office will have to go after clean money.
A pretty good example of that distinction is to look at Mariko Yamada’s first campaign and compare that with her second. The first time she largely took small donations from private citizens who were not organized and not giving in order to get. In her second campaign, the vast majority of her contributors are unions who have gained from her votes and other parties which make money from her votes.
As I noted earlier in this thread, that is not ideal. Much better would be to have publicly financed campaigns. I would recommend to Democrats to pursue that if 32 passes.
A reasonable wory if 32 passes is that it will give a bigger advantage to wealthy candidates who can self-finance their own campaigns. These won’t be right-wing rich folks. They will be more likely people like Gavin Newsom who win office. I point that out because I think it is stupid to think that the end of union money will cause liberal voters to elect well-financed conservatives.
[i]”I think there is a tendency to overstate the impact of these things, and my guess is unions would find ways to acquire funding and promote their causes.”[/i]
They have every right to ‘promote their causes’ now and that will not change. They would not have the right to buy influence, which clearly is what they (and various large contractors) do now.
[i]”… to what extent do you think the argument that the effects are one-sided might have merit?”[/i]
I do agree that its impact will mostly be one-sided. As David said, it will make it harder for the biggest Democratic donor to raise money. I don’t see it having that same impact on Republican donors.
But because California is overwhelmingly Democratic and because it is going to get more Democratic as Latinos become a bigger majority of voters, hurting them a bit if it cleans up our legislation seems to me well worth the trade off.
I certainly don’t favor 32 because I want to help the GOP. My belief is that our politics are dirty and this will go a long way to clean them up. I still think the Democrats will favor unions, because that is their philosophy. On the other hand, if a Democrat like Lois Wolk votes against one of their bills because she believes that bill would harm a city like Davis, the unions will no longer be able to extract retribution against her. That is, if they are not the major donor to the Dems, they won’t control people like Darrell Steinberg.
medwoman wrote:
> It is largely because I do not believe that
> virtue lies exclusively on either side of the
> idealogic divide in our country, that I would
> favor exclusively public funding of all political
> campaigning including disallowing the activity
> of PACs.
As someone who has been deep in politics working with both Republicans and Democrats (and even some Libertarians) over the years there is little “virtue” on either side…
It may be hard at first but if we can get people that may not agree on everything (like a hunter and a vegan) to work together to get the crooks out of government we will have a better place to live.
It saddens me that I hear time and time again from people on the right “sure he is a crook, but the other guy does not like guns” or from the left sure she is a crook, but she wants to ban meat in school lunches…
I was a fan of banning ALL campaign contributions until I spent some time thinking it through and unless we ban ALL free speech (and the press and the web) it won’t work since people like David with a Blog will still be able to speak his mind and newspapers will still be able to endorse people and someone like Meg Whitman can still buy a lot of ads with her millions…
Rifs
“A few years later, when a new bankruptcy bill, admittedly less bad than the first one, came up for a vote, Wolk voted just as the firefighters wanted. She learned the lesson of what ‘doing the right thing’ causes.”
Or perhaps she honestly felt that this “less bad bill” had enough merits that it, unlike the first, was worthy of her support.
Rifs
[quote]Let me take a step back and explain something about labor economics to you which you likely understand already but probably have not given much specific thought to[/quote]
You are quite right that this is something to which I do not give much specific thought. And I appreciate your explanation. But as I was thinking about it, another point came up for me because of what I see daily in my practice. Employers have the upper hand in a way that you did not mention, but is critical to many employees decision making. As long as the only affordable health insurance is bound to employment, many employees will de facto be trapped in their current jobs at whatever rate the employer chooses to pay them because they, or a family member cannot take the chance of being insured if they should seek a new job and the search prove unsuccessful or if they should lose the job. This in effect means that many are trapped in their current postions regardless of ambition or skills. I am not sure how directly applicabile this factor is to public employee unions,
but I do know that it contributes to a less than collaborative mind set. Employees who feel trapped are more likely to take a self serving stance than those who see a system which addresses their needs fairly.
Meds, your point about medical insurance tying people to their jobs is correct and well taken. However, that is less true now under Obamacare and it should become even less of a job-binding factor in the coming years as all the provisions of Obamacare are put in place.
Speaking of Obamacare, the always thoughtful NY Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, recently wrote a good piece about a friend of his who had no insurance after leaving his job and then found himself in a terrible bind when he became ill ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-possibly-fatal-mistake.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=0[/url]). (If you don’t read it, the bottom line of the story is this: The cost of caring for this man, who may yet die, is going to be ten times as expensive as it would have been had he been insured and received treatment before he got very, very sick. Under Obamacare, he would have been insured. And that would have saved all of us a lot of money.)