Collective Bargaining
 

As many Americans (and maybe some non-Americans) know that the state of Wisconsin (where cheesehead and I live) is experiencing numerous protests and fierce debates as the newly elected governor wants to curb some collective bargaining rights. This is all part of a larger bill intended to save money by requiring most public employees to pay more into their health care and pensions than they currently do.

Most public employees are willing to pay more for health care and pensions, but do not want to give up collective bargaining.

I find it difficult to side with the Democrats. I have a few reasons for it. One is that I am a private sector employee. I don't have collective bargaining. I don't have a pension. (I do have a 401K, but the company does not fund it.) I can't retire at 55. When I do retire I will have to pay for my own health insurance. I can be fired at any time.

What I am not hearing in the debate is what would really happen if public sector employees lost collective bargaining. I hear a lot of references such as "slavery" and references to working conditions of the 19th century. Those are disingenuous at best.

I suspect that some of you have opinions on this ongoing debate as it affects more than just Wisconsin.

Another distinction the protesters in Wisconsin and most in the MSM seem to be oblivious to is that there is a big difference in labor/management dynamics in the private versus the public sector. If a private-sector union manages to get its employer(s) to overpromise on salary/pensions/benefits, the employer will eventually go bankrupt, end of story: "Enjoy those now-nullified perks, guys."

(Caveat: Unless the union can get the government to bail them out: See "GM Bankruptcy". But I consider that an intrusion of government into the private sector, i.e. at that point one is no longer dealing with any semblance of free-market private-sector economics.)

In the public sector, the temptation to overpromise (in order to basically buy votes) and simply stick one's political successors and future taxpayers with the bill appears to be overwhelming and nearly ubiquitous. The following letter from FDR (written August 16, 1937) which has been making the internet rounds nicely captures the danger:

[url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445]Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions[/url]
[quote]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 when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.[/quote]

[QUOTE=rogue;254288]As many Americans (and maybe some non-Americans) know that the state of Wisconsin (where cheesehead and I live) is experiencing numerous protests and fierce debates as the newly elected governor wants to curb some collective bargaining rights. This is all part of a larger bill intended to save money by requiring most public employees to pay more into their health care and pensions than they currently do.

Most public employees are willing to pay more for health care and pensions, but do not want to give up collective bargaining.

I find it difficult to side with the Democrats. I have a few reasons for it. One is that I am a private sector employee. I don't have collective bargaining. I don't have a pension. (I do have a 401K, but the company does not fund it.) I can't retire at 55. When I do retire I will have to pay for my own health insurance. I can be fired at any time.

What I am not hearing in the debate is what would really happen if public sector employees lost collective bargaining. I hear a lot of references such as "slavery" and references to working conditions of the 19th century. Those are disingenuous at best.

I suspect that some of you have opinions on this ongoing debate as it affects more than just Wisconsin.[/QUOTE]

Note also that the Demotwits are being total hypocrites.

Demotwits constantly chastise Republitards for filibusters in Congress,
thereby obstructing legislation.

Now they are doing the same f*cking thing.

I'm not opposed to the idea of unions, and I think they often do good. I am opposed to the power unions are given, whereby freedom is curtailed. In particular, in many ways unions act as monopolies and are not subject to competitive forces. On the other hand, I don't know if workers had access to different unions, which competed with one another, whether that would be beneficial.

Unions are the current focus of public outrage, partly because of real causes -- busted state budgets -- but also because of the usual rich man's priorities: keeping middle class folks blaming immigrants, minorities, and other groups in the middle class so that the military contracts and financial industry can continue to function without interference.

"Three trillion for two wars? Phhbt! Ignore that stuff: check out that fat lazy teacher over there. Why, I do believe he's taking your money. The rascal!"

Some unions are not currently the subject of outrage: right-leaning ones, like the public safety unions in Wisconsin, which the Governor Scott Walker does not propose to deprive of collective-bargaining rights. Or the prison guards union in California, which is a patriotic union that should remain above criticism.

And some sorts of spending are also above outrage: juicy military pensions, farm subsidies, and unnecessary military bases in places which would have no economy otherwise. But much of this money is spent in places where real Americans live. Since such folks are unlikely to be black or liberal, there is little anger currently at such spending.

There should be cuts in some state pensions, but the teachers seem to mostly use their union power to obstruct educational reform instead of boosting compensation, which seems middling or low to me.

If/when the last public-sector union is crushed, what will the next enemy be? Alabama has no teacher's unions, and their public schools absolutely suck. Who do they blame?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254398]Or the prison guards union in California, which is a patriotic union that should remain above criticism.[/quote]I suggest that you read this story. [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prisons-20110302,0,5376090.story[/url]

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254398]"Three trillion for two wars? ...
juicy military pensions ...
farm subsidies ...,
unnecessary military bases ... [/QUOTE]

I don't think these are the reasons Wisconsin is having budget problems.

Scott Walker and the Republicans got their way. They were able to sidestep the requirement for a quorum by removing financial components from the current bill. Collective bargaining is mostly gone from Wisconsin.

It was very annoying to me to see the liberals protesting this bill equating collective bargaining right with human rights. What??? Obviously they haven't been to China. They also act as if the public sector is the last of the middle class. What about the rest of us middle-classers in the private sector? I feel no affinity for unionized employees in the public sector.

Someone at work was telling me how his neighbor (a police officer) was grumbling about his 2% pay raise and that it has averaged at about 3% over the past few years. When my co-worker explained to him that we haven't had a raise in three years AND took a 10% temporary pay cut for one of those years, he was surprised. He had no idea that the non-unionized private sector didn't work the same way as the unionized public sector. It goes to show how much FUD is spread by the unions.

[QUOTE=rogue;254795] I feel no affinity for unionized employees in the public sector.[/QUOTE]Are you attracted or repelled by the ionized employees, or does it depend on their charge?

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;254798]Are you attracted or repelled by the ionized employees, or does it depend on their charge?[/QUOTE]

:smile:

[QUOTE=rogue;254795]It goes to show how much FUD is spread by the unions.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. And whether a teacher was good or bad, he enjoyed a raise, just like CEOs and upper management.

For the past 30 years, the high earners have earned more and more, while the rest of us have fallen behind inflation. Maybe the wealthy just work harder and hard each year while the rest of us slack.

Now that there is less money all around, guess who is being asked to tighten their belts? The little people.

And soon nearly all lobbying and campaign contributions will flow from the wealthy. Even our putative Marxist president is essentially a corporate technocrat.

If you who believe that the United States of 1890 was a great paradise, built on non-union labor singing four-part harmony throughout their 70-hour work weeks, I have good news for you: you may see such conditions again.

Good riddance to most public-sector unions, but I wonder when the top earners will be asked to tighten their belts.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]Absolutely. And whether a teacher was good or bad, he enjoyed a raise, just like CEOs and upper management.

For the past 30 years, the high earners have earned more and more, while the rest of us have fallen behind inflation. Maybe the wealthy just work harder and hard each year while the rest of us slack.

Now that there is less money all around, guess who is being asked to tighten their belts? The little people.

And soon nearly all lobbying and campaign contributions will flow from the wealthy. Even our putative Marxist president is essentially a corporate technocrat.

If you who believe that the United States of 1890 was a great paradise, built on non-union labor singing four-part harmony throughout their 70-hour work weeks, I have good news for you: you may see such conditions again.

Good riddance to most public-sector unions, but I wonder when the top earners will be asked to tighten their belts.[/QUOTE]

Being a cynic, I understand where you are coming from, but I was only attacking unions. This discussion was not about CEOs raping their employees to enhance their golden parachutes.

Unions were necessary when there was no workplace protections for the workers, but things have changed in the past 100 years. I don't hear anyone in right to work states complaining about mistreatment by management.

BTW, if unions are so good, why doesn't Obama fight for more unionization in the federal goverment?

[QUOTE=rogue;254807]Being a cynic, I understand where you are coming from, but I was only attacking unions. This discussion was not about CEOs raping their employees to enhance their golden parachutes.[/QUOTE]

Fine. I hope you have no objection to someone making a point in this thread that the only privilege and corruption being rooted out these days is that which benefits the little people? Or is there some rule on this forum that my points constitute threadjacking in some sense?

[QUOTE]I don't hear anyone in right to work states complaining about mistreatment by management.[/QUOTE]

I am not in a right to work state, but I'm in a non-unionized field. I hear plenty of bitching about mistreatment by management. There is plenty of resentment of unionized public sector employees coming from private sector employees in every state. I believe that is because they resent the privileges enjoyed by public sector employees at a time when they themselves feel insecure. Though unions are probably not the solution to their problems, I have no vision of workers in non-unionized or right-to-work environments as being happy whistling litle elves.

[QUOTE]BTW, if unions are so good, why doesn't Obama fight for more unionization in the federal goverment?[/QUOTE]

Is there anything in my statements which suggests that I feel this would be a good idea, or that I speak for Obama? Or am I misunderstanding this sentence?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]Absolutely. And whether a teacher was good or bad, he enjoyed a raise, just like CEOs and upper management.[/QUOTE]

Actually the two are very unlike!

The ideal situation in both cases would be that those who are better would be paid more and those that are worse would be paid less, with those underperforming by a sufficient margin being fired.

In practice teachers are paid more based primarily on seniority*, regardless of their teaching ability. Low-performers are rarely fired, almost never when they have a reasonable number of years of experience.

In practice CEOs are paid more in good economic times and less in bad economic times, regardless of their managerial ability. (Bonuses are typically based on the company's absolute improvement, which is closely related to the overall financial health of the country.) Low-performers are often fired and high-performers typically take jobs at other companies for more pay (or negotiate for more at their current job).

Based on these imperfections, you'd expect that CEOs would be skilled but prone to risk-taking and that older teachers would be better-educated but less motivated to work hard. I'd argue that this is essentially correct.

* Technically, seniority and education. But education is [i]required[/i], making more senior teachers automatically fairly well-educated. (Whether this is good or bad, and to what extent, is an entirely separate discussion.)

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]For the past 30 years, the high earners have earned more and more, while the rest of us have fallen behind inflation.[/QUOTE]

No, actually.

In the past 30 years high earners have become wealthier faster than average- or low-earners in the US. This is unusual -- through most of the country's history the low- and moderate-earners have had their earnings increase faster than the high-income crowd.

But all groups have had their earnings increase faster than inflation.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]Now that there is less money all around, guess who is being asked to tighten their belts? The little people.[/QUOTE]

As a percentage, the incomes of the rich has decreased more in this recession than that of the middle-class or poor. As the economy recovers, their incomes will rise faster.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]And soon nearly all lobbying and campaign contributions will flow from the wealthy.[/QUOTE]

Yes -- and this is a major influence in politics, IMO a strongly negative one. Related issues like regulatory capture are very serious and unfortunately not given enough public attention.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254820]In the past 30 years high earners have become wealthier faster than average- or low-earners in the US. This is unusual -- through most of the country's history the low- and moderate-earners have had their earnings increase faster than the high-income crowd.

But all groups have had their earnings increase faster than inflation.
[/QUOTE]

I would like to see a link for your last statement.

Presuming that your statement is true, doesn't that tend to imply that the wealthy should be taxed at a greater percentage than what they currently are? My argument is that the disposable income of the wealthy is growing at a much greater rate than that of the non-wealthy.

[QUOTE]
As a percentage, the incomes of the rich has decreased more in this recession than that of the middle-class or poor. As the economy recovers, their incomes will rise faster.
[/QUOTE]

The first statement might be true, but even though the rich have "taken a bigger hit" than the middle class or poor, they are more immune to the recession than anyone else.

[QUOTE]
Yes -- and this is a major influence in politics, IMO a strongly negative one. Related issues like regulatory capture are very serious and unfortunately not given enough public attention.[/QUOTE]Outside money is a huge problem (IMO). I disagreed with the Supreme Court's statement that some group can spend freely in elections because they are protected by freedom of speech. IIRC freedom of speech applies to individuals, not these overly influential groups. Although I would like to see purely publicly financed elections, how does one determine who gets that assistance?

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]I would like to see a link for your last statement.[/QUOTE]

I'll dig one up for you if I get a chance.

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]Presuming that your statement is true, doesn't that tend to imply that the wealthy should be taxed at a greater percentage than what they currently are? My argument is that the disposable income of the wealthy is growing at a much greater rate than that of the non-wealthy.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't say anything about it one way or another. That's a normative statement, and mine was a positive one.

Personally I don't see the argument -- tax rates for a given income level should not be based on the rate of increase to that level. I wouldn't want to tax the [i]nouveau riche[/i] at a higher rate than the established wealthy. That is, if people become rich more quickly they will rise the progressive taxation scale and pay more on that basis rather than by a comparison with how much they had been making before.

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]The first statement might be true, but even though the rich have "taken a bigger hit" than the middle class or poor, they are more immune to the recession than anyone else.[/QUOTE]

It's better to have money in bad times as well as good? Sure, no one would disagree with that.

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]Outside money is a huge problem (IMO). I disagreed with the Supreme Court's statement that some group can spend freely in elections because they are protected by freedom of speech.[/QUOTE]

There are separate issues of what the law should be and what the law is. Any combination of views can be held here: that the decision was correct or incorrect and that the situation is desirable or undesirable. Personally I'm in the quadrant that says that the decision was correct, legally, but the situation should be different from what it is. A far harder issue is determining what that should be: newspapers, unions, and groups like the Federation of American Scientists are companies too, and I'm loathe to allow Congress to restrict their 'free speech' rights on a whim. I'm convinced that there is a solution but I don't know what it is. (Let's not discuss that here, though -- if you're interested, please start another thread.)

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]Although I would like to see purely publicly financed elections, how does one determine who gets that assistance?[/QUOTE]

The idea of publicly-financed elections terrifies me. Giving control of who gets funding for future elections to those who won the current election with the help of those funds seems inherently ripe for abuse. (All the major leaders of my local government were recently found to be corrupt on a massive scale; most are now in federal prison. You could say I'm more than slightly concerned about vulnerabilities in the system.)

I think what bugged me today was the fact that they wouldn't let people into a place they represent people in. It looks like they've tried to sidestep the law ( nothing new to politics last I heard anything).

[QUOTE=science_man_88;254831]I think what bugged me today was the fact that they wouldn't let people into a place they represent people in. It looks like they've tried to sidestep the law ( nothing new to politics last I heard anything).[/QUOTE]

I think that they are concerned about the safety of those who work in the capital, especially the Republicans who passed the bill. I think they are also concerned about the disruptions caused by the protests.

BTW, many of those who are protesting do not live or work in Wisconsin. Many are students from the university.

[QUOTE=rogue;254833]I think that they are concerned about the safety of those who work in the capital, especially the Republicans who passed the bill. I think they are also concerned about the disruptions caused by the protests.

BTW, many of those who are protesting do not live or work in Wisconsin. Many are students from the university.[/QUOTE]

So what.

Do you live or work in Wisconsin? I don't, and I assume that not everyone in this thread does. Should non-Wisconsinites keep their mouths shut on this issue?

You imply that those who disagree with Republicans, or who protested at the Capitol, are dangerous student radicals, or undesirables. Perhaps they should get real jobs?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254846]So what.

Do you live or work in Wisconsin? I don't, and I assume that not everyone in this thread does. Should non-Wisconsinites keep their mouths shut on this issue?

You imply that those who disagree with Republicans, or who protested at the Capitol, are dangerous student radicals, or undesirables. Perhaps they should get real jobs?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I live and work in Wisconsin, so I understand the issues well and probably better than anyone in this forum except cheesehead.

No. I am stating that only those directly impacted by this change should be protesting.

If Democrats are swept into power in the next election cycle and submit a bill to restore what was lost this week, I would not appreciate conservative outsiders getting involved in any protest either.

[QUOTE=rogue;254848]Yes, I live and work in Wisconsin, so I understand the issues well and probably better than anyone in this forum except cheesehead.[/QUOTE]Much as I have paid attention, I would not venture that I necessarily understand the issues in depth as well as someone who's been here longer.

What's happening in Wisconsin is incipient fascism. Any one who appreciates history will observe this carefully to enrich their understanding of how socio-economic-cultural evolution occurs.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254827] A far harder issue is determining what that should be: newspapers, unions, and groups like the Federation of American Scientists are companies too, and I'm loathe to allow Congress to restrict their 'free speech' rights on a whim. I'm convinced that there is a solution .[/QUOTE]

Don't allow ANY outside funding toward election campaigns.

Give every candidate a fixed (and equal!) amount of money out of public
tax money.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;254891]Don't allow ANY outside funding toward election campaigns.

Give every candidate a fixed (and equal!) amount of money out of public
tax money.[/QUOTE]I can accept the concept that corporations are entities that may be entitled to rights like freedom of speech and the corresponding ability to make a political contribution. What I don't accept is that a corporation has more standing to contribute than any other individual. After all, each and every person in the corporation has not ceded their individual rights to contribute and the right of a corporation to contribute does not scale by size so the reasonable thing in my opinion is to limit a corporation's contributions to the maximum allowed to individuals.

I'm curious as to why Wisconsin is such a lightning rod on this issue. There are states without any collective bargaining rights (Wisconsin still has some), yet I don't see people protesting over it. Ohio just rescinded collective bargaining rights and IIRC is even more draconian than what happened here, yet protesting there was minimal. I suspect it has to do with the University of Wisconsin, which is near the capital. On TV I've noticed that a large percentage of protesters appear to be students.

I personally think that a number of the Democrats at the national level are hypocrites. If Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, and Barack Obama think that collective bargaining is such a great thing, why didn't they fight for it at the federal level after the Democrats were swept into office in 2008?

I have been listening to some of the protesters comments. What you hear shows how much many of them don't even understand what was in the bill. To hear references to Nazi Germany or China is crazy. I don't recall hearing any governors in right to work states being called Nazis. I don't see working conditions in other states that resemble those in China (except those who use illegal immigrants).

I suspect that if the bill passes muster (there are legal challenges) that in two years that people will realize that the sky didn't fall, that the world didn't end, and that things really didn't change that much.

And so it will proceed, small negative change by small negative change, until our grandchildren are asking if Grandpa really once knew someone who owned his own house, and if there was really a time that you didn't work on Saturdays.

[QUOTE=rogue;254903]On TV I've noticed that a large percentage of protesters appear to be students.[/QUOTE]

Dirty hippies! How dare they?

Free speech. Invigorating, isn't it? You don't have to own property or be male to vote, and there's no poll tax! Smells like freedom. Sorry about that: the riff-raff can have opinions, too.

If corporate entities can now speak anonymously with a million-watt megaphone thanks to Citizens United, I have no problem with some ill-informed students trekking up one of the eight streets to the Capitol.

[QUOTE]I personally think that a number of the Democrats at the national level are hypocrites. If Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, and Barack Obama think that collective bargaining is such a great thing, why didn't they fight for it at the federal level after the Democrats were swept into office in 2008?[/QUOTE]

Indeed: hypocrites. I dislike all three.

I have another question: if killing an embryo is flat-out murder, why don't Republicans ban it everywhere and jail the mother as well as the doctor, and why don't they ban in-vitro fertilization, since each successful pregnancy results in several embryos being frozen and ultimately discarded?

If St. Reagan is beatific in the eyes of all on heaven and earth, why is raising taxes, which he did several times, described as wicked? Why was Clinton's moving the top marginal rate from Reagan's 38.5% to a whopping 39.6% deemed flagitious in the extreme by Republicans one and all?

If the Wisconsin Democrats are dirty obstructionist blackguards for fleeing the state to prevent a quorum, why don't Washington Senate Republicans cut down the filibusters from their current rate of 25x the historical norm?

If wealth redistribution is vile and does nothing to help those who receive it, can we cut the federal subsidies to states like Alaska, Iowa, and South Dakota from the coffers of California, New Jersey, and Texas?

If public employee unions are so terrible, why did Governor Walker leave the police and fire unions untouched? Why are the military - public employees the lot of them - given half pay plus free medical care for life, after retiring at 40, whether or not they actually saw combat?

And why did every middle-aged conservative I know of that reached age 18 between 1965 and 1973 without serving in Vietnam, have such a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War?

See how stupid these sorts of arguments sound? "Why doesn't X do Y if it's so great?"

[QUOTE]I suspect that if the bill passes muster (there are legal challenges) that in two years that people will realize that the sky didn't fall, that the world didn't end, and that things really didn't change that much.[/QUOTE]

Then why do it in the first place?

[QUOTE=only_human;254900]I can accept the concept that corporations are entities that may be entitled to rights like freedom of speech and the corresponding ability to make a political contribution. What I don't accept is that a corporation has more standing to contribute than any other individual. After all, each and every person in the corporation has not ceded their individual rights to contribute and the right of a corporation to contribute does not scale by size so the reasonable thing in my opinion is to limit a corporation's contributions to the maximum allowed to individuals.[/QUOTE]

Also reasonable.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;254891]Don't allow ANY outside funding toward election campaigns.

Give every candidate a fixed (and equal!) amount of money out of public
tax money.[/QUOTE]

You'd fund [i]my[/i] electoral campaign as much as Obama's?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254920]You'd fund [i]my[/i] electoral campaign as much as Obama's?[/QUOTE]

What's the problem? You seem to have more conviction than he does, and analytical skills at least as sound.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]See how stupid these sorts of arguments sound? "Why doesn't X do Y if it's so great?"[/QUOTE]

Most of your arguments sound stupid because they're actually of the form "If X says Y, why does Z not do Y?". I think the arguments you're ridiculing are of the same form...?

Regardless, I'll address some of these.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]If the Wisconsin Democrats are dirty obstructionist blackguards for fleeing the state to prevent a quorum, why don't Washington Senate Republicans cut down the filibusters from their current rate of 25x the historical norm?[/QUOTE]

I assume you're being facetious (unless you're not an American or otherwise don't understand the American legislative system). The party in power always calls the party out of power "obstructionist" for not going along with their plans.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]If wealth redistribution is vile and does nothing to help those who receive it, can we cut the federal subsidies to states like Alaska, Iowa, and South Dakota from the coffers of California, New Jersey, and Texas?[/QUOTE]

I'd love to. Actually, I'd love to change the system of federal spending that benefits the states dramatically, because it's not only corruptible but currently corrupt -- in the sense that it's used strategically, every year, by politicians to reward their supporters and maximize votes. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is -- I've thought of several methods but none are polished.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]If public employee unions are so terrible, why did Governor Walker leave the police and fire unions untouched?[/QUOTE]

Political expediency, one assumes.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]Why are the military - public employees the lot of them - given half pay plus free medical care for life, after retiring at 40, whether or not they actually saw combat?[/QUOTE]

Not sure what the argument is here. Are you arguing that members of the military are overpaid, or that given a level of benefits they should be redistributed differently? Or are you talking not about benefits as such but merely the retirement, compared to other government jobs with early retirement (e.g., police)?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]And why did every middle-aged conservative I know of that reached age 18 between 1965 and 1973 without serving in Vietnam, have such a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War?[/QUOTE]

That seems to speak to your 'friends' more than anything else. I wonder, too, how many individuals you're talking about (sample size) and whether they actually all feel that way.

Put another way: Surely a person with "a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War" would say "right decision" to the question "Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq?" According to [url=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm]this Aug. 25-Sept. 6, 2010 poll[/url] (the first one I could find that split out Republicans from others), 68% of Republicans gave that response. So with 95% confidence (Clopper-Pearson interval) I can conclude that you know at most 8 such middle-aged conservatives.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254924]What's the problem? You seem to have more conviction than he does, and analytical skills at least as sound.[/QUOTE]

I try. :blush:

But my question is just one of practicality. There are surely thousands of people who would be happy for the publicity of an election campaign if it was funded for them. Could we realistically fund them all?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254918]I have another question: if killing an embryo is flat-out murder, why don't Republicans ban it everywhere and jail the mother as well as the doctor, and why don't they ban in-vitro fertilization, since each successful pregnancy results in several embryos being frozen and ultimately discarded?

If St. Reagan is beatific in the eyes of all on heaven and earth, why is raising taxes, which he did several times, described as wicked? Why was Clinton's moving the top marginal rate from Reagan's 38.5% to a whopping 39.6% deemed flagitious in the extreme by Republicans one and all?

If the Wisconsin Democrats are dirty obstructionist blackguards for fleeing the state to prevent a quorum, why don't Washington Senate Republicans cut down the filibusters from their current rate of 25x the historical norm?

If wealth redistribution is vile and does nothing to help those who receive it, can we cut the federal subsidies to states like Alaska, Iowa, and South Dakota from the coffers of California, New Jersey, and Texas?

If public employee unions are so terrible, why did Governor Walker leave the police and fire unions untouched? Why are the military - public employees the lot of them - given half pay plus free medical care for life, after retiring at 40, whether or not they actually saw combat?

And why did every middle-aged conservative I know of that reached age 18 between 1965 and 1973 without serving in Vietnam, have such a hard-on in support of the 2003 Iraq War?

See how stupid these sorts of arguments sound? "Why doesn't X do Y if it's so great?"[/QUOTE]

I can't answer many of your questions, nor do I wish to. From what I understand, Walker's bill did not affect the police and fire unions because he was concerned about walkouts and thus the safety of the capital.

My earlier point (the one to which you responded with the word "thread-jacking") is that I was interested in discussing this one issue. I know of liberals who agree with the change and conservatives who disagree with it. You appear to be interested in provoking me by implying that I am a hard-core conservative. I am equally annoyed that you are polarizing the discussion by inferring things that are not said.

If you choose to be civil, then maybe I will respond to specific inquiries on this issue, but until then I will ignore your rants.

BTW, I am not a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter). The issue of collective bargaining is one of the few that I happen to agree with the Republicans on.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254925]Most of your arguments sound stupid because they're actually of the form "If X says Y, why does Z not do Y?". Perhaps the arguments you're ridiculing are of the same form?[/QUOTE]

This is special pleading. If you follow an ideology, you aren't off the hook for any the tenets of that ideology which you have not initialed, line-by-line, in the presence of a notary.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254925]
I assume you're being facetious (unless you're not an American and don't understand the American legislative system).
[/QUOTE]
No need for me to be facetious. The Republicans are outraged at obstructionist legislative tactics. Seems strange from a party with an unprecedented love of filibusters over matters as trivial as judicial appointments.

[QUOTE]I'd love to. Actually, I'd love to change the system of federal spending that benefits the states dramatically, because it's not only corruptible but currently corrupt -- in the sense that it's used strategically, every year, by politicians to reward their supporters and maximize votes. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is -- I've thought of several methods but none are polished.[/QUOTE]

My point was that rogue had a problem with the hypocrisy of Democrats, yet, whoever is in power, certain things, no matter how repugnant political figures seem to find them, remain in place. The Democrats have nothing near a monopoly on this sort of hypocrisy.

[QUOTE]Political expediency, one assumes.[/QUOTE]
Ye-ess! And from a man like Walker, who decries the foul corruption of public-sector unionization, this is ... is - what's that word? - hypocrisy.

[QUOTE]Not sure what the argument is here. Are you arguing that members of the military are overpaid, or that given a level of benefits they should be redistributed differently? Or are you talking not about benefits as such but merely the retirement, compared to other government jobs with early retirement (e.g., police)?[/QUOTE]

I speak of the general indifference among conservatives to pensions for military members, which rings hypocritical in light of the militant opposition to generous public pensions among conservatives. And these military pensions make schoolteacher pensions look stingy.

I know a retired JAG in her early forties who will get $45K a year until she drops. Outrageous!

[QUOTE]"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq?" According to [url=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm]this Aug. 25-Sept. 6, 2010 poll[/url] (the first one I could find that split out Republicans from others), 68% of Republicans gave that response. So with 95% confidence (Clopper-Pearson interval) I can conclude that you know at most 8 such middle-aged conservatives.[/QUOTE]
I speak of Vietnam-eligible men who **didn't** serve in Vietnam, not Republicans/conservatives in general. My evidence is indeed anecdotal, but I also know a few veterans of WWII and Vietnam who thought Bush was out of his mind. I was mystified by the dichotomy among my acquaintances. A couple of local self-described libertarians were red-faced sweatin' in support of that war. Best I could figure was John Wayne syndrome: "My country, right or wrong" is most often heard from conservative men who had an opportunity to serve in the military yet did not, out of fear or family concerns.

Is it that unreasonable that a lawyer should take early retirement on a little under US median household income?

An annuity paying $45k is about a million dollars; so that's suggesting that the JAG salary is about $50k less than an equivalent lawyer could get in private practice, with the rest going into pension. US lawyers are not notably poorly paid (it may well be that the JAG corps doesn't manage as high a salary as an East Coast firm of comparable scope); glassdoor.com suggests an average salary of order of $175k, whilst twenty years service in JAG makes you a lieutenant-colonel on not quite $100k. So that all seems to fit together quite reasonably.

I do find the idea that people with a pension should not also work quite a weird one; would you say the same for someone who had, by careful choice of parents, acquired a trust fund paying out the same amount annually?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254926]I try. :blush:

But my question is just one of practicality. There are surely thousands of people who would be happy for the publicity of an election campaign if it was funded for them. Could we realistically fund them all?[/QUOTE]

In the UK, there are strict limits on what can be spent by political parties, and it's a serious offence (people are sent to jail for a couple of years) to overstep them. You have to send receipts for everything spent to the Electoral Commission.

[url]http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis/campaign-expenditure/uk-parliamentary-general-election-campaign-expenditure[/url]

Of course we're electing 650 MPs rather than a single President. You have to put up a $800 deposit and get a form signed by (I think) a hundred voters to be allowed to stand, you get one free mailshot to every registered voter in the constituency, you lose the deposit if you get less than 5% of the votes.

If you're electing US Presidents, a half-million dollar deposit sounds the right sort of scale; that'll remove an awful lot of loons.

[QUOTE=fivemack;254910]And so it will proceed, small negative change by small negative change, until our grandchildren are asking if Grandpa really once knew someone who owned his own house, and if there was really a time that you didn't work on Saturdays.[/QUOTE]

Slippery slope argument.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254920]You'd fund [i]my[/i] electoral campaign as much as Obama's?[/QUOTE]

Clearly, national/state level office would provide more funding than
(say) for the local town council.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254931]This is special pleading. If you follow an ideology, you aren't off the hook for any the tenets of that ideology which you have not initialed, line-by-line, in the presence of a notary.[/QUOTE]

So you take the most extreme, off-the-wall positions from one ideology and castigate anyone who claims membership but doesn't follow those extreme positions? That seems unwise, not to mention applicable to extremist positions in every ideology.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254931]No need for me to be facetious. The Republicans are outraged at obstructionist legislative tactics. Seems strange from a party with an unprecedented love of filibusters over matters as trivial as judicial appointments.[/QUOTE]

The Democrats were outraged at Republican obstructionism, was that wrong?

I don't see either side's use of filibusters and other maneuvers as anything other than politics-as-usual.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254931]My point was that rogue had a problem with the hypocrisy of Democrats, yet, whoever is in power, certain things, no matter how repugnant political figures seem to find them, remain in place. The Democrats have nothing near a monopoly on this sort of hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]

Certainly not, it's endemic in DC.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254931]Ye-ess! And from a man like Walker, who decries the foul corruption of public-sector unionization, this is ... is - what's that word? - hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]

I would disagree!

I have no knowledge of Walker, but saying that he's hypocritical because he wants A and B and introduced legislation for A seems logically baseless. There are many things I might want to do as a politician; two might be to raise the estate tax and lower the income tax. Would you call me a hypocrite if I introduced a bill that raised the estate tax but failed to lower the income tax? There are lots of good reasons why I might do that, including the possibility that there's support (in my hypothetical electoral district) for raising the estate tax but not for lowering the income tax.

And that assumes that Walker even feels the way you describe -- it's possible that he feels that only public-safety officials amongst public-sector workers should be unionized. (I have no idea what he thinks or says.)

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254931]I speak of the general indifference among conservatives to pensions for military members, which rings hypocritical in light of the militant opposition to generous public pensions among conservatives. And these military pensions make schoolteacher pensions look stingy.[/QUOTE]

Possibly -- though to be fair, members of the military make far less, on average, than teachers. Starting salary at the high school where my friend teaches is almost triple the starting pay for active-duty enlisted. It's not obvious who 'should' make more, or by how much -- I'm only pointing out that you need to compare the whole package.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;254938]Clearly, national/state level office would provide more funding than
(say) for the local town council.[/QUOTE]

Oh no, I'm running for President! Why not, if the government will bankroll my campaign?

[QUOTE=fivemack;254935]In the UK, there are strict limits on what can be spent by political parties, and it's a serious offence (people are sent to jail for a couple of years) to overstep them. You have to send receipts for everything spent to the Electoral Commission.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I like the UK system. It's not clear how to adopt it to the US, as they're very different in many ways (as you point out).

[QUOTE=fivemack;254934]Is it that unreasonable that a lawyer should take early retirement on a little under US median household income?[/QUOTE]

In the sense that she's competing against private-sector lawyering, which is largely of no economic use, there is a disconnect, for me, in paying according to a profession overvalued by civilian society. This is similar to paying all generals according to CEO pay scales.

Private-sector lawyers also work well past 45, although I believe one can make partner by that age. Would it be possible to accumulate $1 million worth of pension in private-sector lawyering? I don't know. Still, I'm not comfortable with tying military pay to the private sector, given the idiocy with which salaries are inflated or depressed in various professions.

[QUOTE]... twenty years service in JAG makes you a lieutenant-colonel on not quite $100k. So that all seems to fit together quite reasonably.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I should not have picked the JAG, but she's a tangible example for me. Should a lieutenant colonel be seeing such government bounty at age 45 forward? I have no problem with a healthy pension kicking in at age 67, if there was service through age 67, or giving the $45K per annum once age 67 rolls around, if the officer was not in the military after age 45.

Will potential JAGs choose to leave that career path if there is no compensation between age 45 and 67? It could happen.

[QUOTE]
I do find the idea that people with a pension should not also work quite a weird one; would you say the same for someone who had, by careful choice of parents, acquired a trust fund paying out the same amount annually?[/QUOTE]

I don't have any antipathy toward working pensioners. The pension should be a reward for services already rendered. It was earned.

A trust-fund child is the product of private wealth, which is not my concern, and about which I have little right to be concerned in this case, other than the pernicious effects of creating a feudal upper class - the dangers of this wax and wane according to the power of the upper classes. As a citizen, by contrast, compensation of public servants concerns me.

Just saw this book listed....
 

[url]http://www.amazon.com/Plunder-Employee-Treasuries-Controlling-Bankrupting/dp/0984275207/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299877287&sr=1-1[/url]

Plunder: How Public Employee Unions are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254939]So you take the most extreme, off-the-wall positions from one ideology and castigate anyone who claims membership but doesn't follow those extreme positions?[/QUOTE]

Wow. I'm not with you here. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Most of what you say is to me a differing take on an agreed-upon reality, but I can't see the positions I quoted as being extreme among today's conservatives.

The positions I stated are indeed mainstream within the Republican Party. David Frum was fired from the American Enterprise Institute for agreeing with elements of Obama's health care reform law. Christopher Buckley has been let go from The National Review. Orrin Hatch faces near-certain primary defeat in the next election. Any Republican office holder who disagrees with Rush Limbaugh is forced to apologize or face the end of his career. Few dare state that they believe Obama was actually born in Hawaii.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254943]Private-sector lawyers also work well past 45, although I believe one can make partner by that age. Would it be possible to accumulate $1 million worth of pension in private-sector lawyering?[/QUOTE]

Easily.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254943]Will potential JAGs choose to leave that career path if there is no compensation between age 45 and 67? It could happen.[/QUOTE]

I would think this almost always happens. If they still want to work I'd expect them to retire as soon as they hit the appropriate number of years and then pick up a job at a private firm.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254943]A trust-fund child is the product of private wealth, which is not my concern, and about which I have little right to be concerned in this case, other than the pernicious effects of creating a feudal upper class - the dangers of this wax and wane according to the power of the upper classes. As a citizen, by contrast, compensation of public servants concerns me.[/QUOTE]

Well said.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254945]The positions I stated are indeed mainstream within the Republican Party.[/QUOTE]

I don't know of any Republican who has introduced a bill to the Senate or House to reclassify abortion as murder. Most oppose it, but the overwhelming majority would disagree with your stance. (Examples of less-extreme stances: "abortion should be considered manslaughter" and "late-term abortion should be considered a misdemeanor".)

Your claim on Regan is, of course, nonsense if taken literally. A weaker claim: "At most one person sees Regan as non-beatific". But even interpreting it as being pro-Regan I'm not sure how much support you'd get. Of the conservatives I know who are old enough to have voted in 1980, most opposed Regan in favor of (H. W.) Bush.

Favoring low taxes and small government are, indeed, planks of the Republican party -- though not adhered to so much in practice. But I doubt you'd get many registered Republicans, whether voters or politicians, to claim that it is "wicked". (No doubt there would be some, but it would be a fringe.)

I've spoken to filibusters already. Their use in recent times is decidedly up -- for both parties. It would be trivial to locate large numbers of quotes from either side lamenting their use by the other.

Your claims on redistribution and public-sector unions are as vague ("vile", "terrible") as your claim on Regan ("beatific"), so I'll skip over them.

I've discussed your Vietnam anecdote already. It's not clear how to interpret this as "mainstream in the Republican party" especially since you explicitly disclaim it as a general statement about Republicans.

So I don't find much we can agree on here. Your statements can be replaced with statements that are generally true, but then they lose their ability to be applied the way you apply them. For example, if we replace the claim that Regan was "beatific in the eyes of all on heaven and earth" with the claim that (in the view of most Republicans) that he's a swell guy, suddenly there's no problem with those same Republicans opposing Clinton's tax hike (with "opposing" replacing "flagitious in the extreme").

I'd love to have a meaningful discussion on political issues, exploring possible solutions to difficult problems. But your invectives make that difficult.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254951]I don't know of any Republican who has introduced a bill to the Senate or House to reclassify abortion as murder.[/QUOTE]
Hence my point about their hypocrisy. They run on this issue in every election. Ever read the Republican platform?

[QUOTE]Your claim on Regan is, of course, nonsense if taken literally.[/QUOTE]
Too bad it was a figure of speech, used often in communication. Are you actually trying to score points this way?

[QUOTE]Favoring low taxes and small government are, indeed, planks of the Republican party -- though not adhered to so much in practice.[/QUOTE]

By the time you're done reconfiguring my arguments, you have managed to convince yourself that you are the one claiming their hypocrites, and I'm accusing them of something else entirely.

(By your standards, since the platform is written by a committee X, and members Y do not adhere to it, neither are hypocrites, of course.)

[QUOTE]I've spoken to filibusters already. Their use in recent times is decidedly up -- for both parties. It would be trivial to locate large numbers of quotes from either side lamenting their use by the other.[/QUOTE]

Between January of 2009 and March of 2010, there were more cloture motions filed in the Senate than were filed between WWI and the moon landings. The Democrats did abuse the filibuster against Bush, but the current scale of its use is unprecedented.

[QUOTE]Your claims on redistribution and public-sector unions are as vague ("vile", "terrible") as your claim on Regan ("beatific"), so I'll skip over them.
[/QUOTE]

If you are hurt by such indelicate language, you should lose your condescending tone. I can handle being addressed this way. Can you handle hearing figurative language on the topics of public figures?

[QUOTE]I've discussed your Vietnam anecdote already. It's not clear how to interpret this as "mainstream in the Republican party" especially since you explicitly disclaim it as a general statement about Republicans.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Good point. Though they are hypocrites, they do not speak for all Republicans.

[QUOTE]... suddenly there's no problem with those same Republicans opposing Clinton's tax hike (with "opposing" replacing "flagitious in the extreme").
[/QUOTE]
Google "republican quotations clinton tax hikes" for some fun rhetoric.

[QUOTE]I'd love to have a meaningful discussion on political issues, exploring possible solutions to difficult problems.[/QUOTE]

You would literally love that? Isn't this a bit, well, figurative? Should I therefore dismiss your statement from a position of assumed superiority?

[QUOTE]But your invectives make that difficult.[/QUOTE]

I have no objection to your choosing to ignore my posts.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254926]There are surely thousands of people who would be happy for the publicity of an election campaign if it was funded for them.[/QUOTE]"Running as a Business Ploy

Some candidates use the presidential campaign as just another way to make money."

[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/running-as-a-business-ploy-20110309[/url]

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]Ever read the Republican platform?[/QUOTE]

Yes, though only the 'short form' version (~12 pp.). Ditto the Democratic platform.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]Too bad it was a figure of speech, used often in communication. Are you actually trying to score points this way?[/QUOTE]

"Score points"? What is this, a competition?

Actually, I'm trying to pin down the meaning you intend. Most of your original post was just insults rather than factual claims. I'd like to extract these claims and determine which are true and which false, and of the false which can easily be corrected.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]By your standards, since the platform is written by a committee X, and members Y do not adhere to it, neither are hypocrites, of course.[/QUOTE]

Neither are automatically hypocrites, correct. A Republican who holds and votes in a liberal way on some issues is not being hypocritical by that act alone. "Hypocritical" is not the same as "impure". Similarly, a Democrat who (like Bill Clinton) is economically moderate isn't hypocritical by virtue of that stance.

Either could be a hypocrite, of course. A (Republican) politician who extols the "sanctity of marriage" but is cheating on her husband is a hypocrite. A (Democratic) politician who runs on a platform of "Buy American" but gives stimulus funds to Chinese companies is a hypocrite. A (Labour) politician who blames budget shortfalls on corruption but is found to be taking bribes is a hypocrite. Etc.

Do you really consider a moderate politician a hypocrite if they belong to a major political party?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]By the time you're done reconfiguring my arguments, you have managed to convince yourself that you are the one claiming their hypocrites, and I'm accusing them of something else entirely.[/QUOTE]

If "they" is Republicans, I've already claimed as much (as I have with Democrats). I'm not entirely sure what you're claiming, and I certainly don't know that it's different from what I believe. It's entirely possible that we're saying many of the same things.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]Between January of 2009 and March of 2010, there were more cloture motions filed in the Senate than were filed between WWI and the moon landings. The Democrats did abuse the filibuster against Bush, but the current scale of its use is unprecedented.[/QUOTE]

I guess to truly distinguish between the theories "filibusters are used more now" and "filibusters are used more now, but only by Republicans" we'll need to wait until the Democrats are in a political situation similar to the one the Republicans had been in.

As for whether the use of the filibuster can be considered abuse (whether by Democrats or Republicans), I'm not sure. Similar questions could be asked of other legislative actions.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]If you are hurt by such indelicate language, you should lose your condescending tone. I can handle being addressed this way. Can you handle hearing figurative language on the topics of public figures?[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry if I come off as condescending.

My problem, though, was not with your tone but with your lack of specificity. You contrast someone saying/thinking that "wealth redistribution is vile" with federal subsidy to low-population states. But we can't measure what people think (not well and not yet, at least), and I doubt many people at all literally say that. So I'm forced to come up with your real meaning. In this case I assume you mean a politician opposing increased spending on Medicaid or the EITC. But this brings up problems:[list][*] What if I came up with the wrong meaning? Perhaps you really intended to talk about a politician who campaigned on a promise to cut 'Bridge to Nowhere'-type spending, or who wants to lower the income tax. Now we're talking about entirely different things.[*] By not stating what you actually mean, the differences between the two are obscured. A person (not me!) could reasonably hold the position that the federal government should give [much] more money per capita to some states than others, and yet oppose {choose one: high income tax, increased Medicaid, increased EITC}.[/list]
[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]Yes. Good point. Though they are hypocrites, they do not speak for all Republicans.[/QUOTE]

They certainly sound like hypocrites from your description. There is a subtle shift here, though, in that this discusses [i]voters[/i] rather than candidates. But I'll go no further on the matter as it's not really germane.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]Google "republican quotations clinton tax hikes" for some fun rhetoric.[/QUOTE]

I haven't forgotten it. :smile:

The funny thing is that Clinton was, economically, about as conservative as (w.) Bush. Certainly Clinton did more for free trade than Bush ever did.

But electioneering is electioneering, and I don't blame politicians for engaging in it. I wish it were otherwise, but that's life.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]You would literally love that?[/QUOTE]

Well, yes. (The word "literal" is yours, but it happens to be true -- at least in sense 17 in [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love]this dictionary[/url].) It's a little embarrassing, perhaps -- you might think that I have better things to care about or do, but honestly... not so much. I derive real enjoyment from intellectual discussions, which now mainly take place online. Most of them are about math but sometimes I can find an intelligent person to discuss politics with.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254955]I have no objection to your choosing to ignore my posts.[/QUOTE]

I'd prefer to continue the conversation, else I would have done so already. But I can't imagine a situation where literally ignoring you would be sensible -- I do that for cranks and trolls, not with people I simply disagree with. And so far I don't even know that we do disagree at all.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;254960]"Running as a Business Ploy

Some candidates use the presidential campaign as just another way to make money."

[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/running-as-a-business-ploy-20110309[/url][/QUOTE]

Exactly! That's the sort of thing that a system would need to avoid. And it would need to avoid it in a manner that is not easily corrupted or abused.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254943]
Private-sector lawyers also work well past 45, although I believe one can make partner by that age. Would it be possible to accumulate $1 million worth of pension in private-sector lawyering? I don't know.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and in the higher-end of the private sector you can do it without difficulty; my father managed to do it as partner in a medium-sized provincial firm, admittedly doing commercial law in the VC capital of the UK ... I gave the salary figures, if you live a lieutenant-colonel's lifestyle on a private-sector lawyers' salary, you can stick $50k/year in the pension, which gets it big enough in under two decades.

[QUOTE] Still, I'm not comfortable with tying military pay to the private sector, given the idiocy with which salaries are inflated or depressed in various professions. [/QUOTE]

If your military requires lawyers and doctors, its choices are to train its own and then tie them down with the largest bolts available (for example, extremely generous pensions that take twenty years to vest) or to pay like the private sector.

factor_eyes: I just read through every part of the Republican platform concerning abortion. I now feel that I have a good grip on the 'official stance'. I'm still not sure what hypocrisy you're talking about. Are you saying that Republicans run on "abortion will be reclassified as murder" in their campaigns but that, by virtue of that stance not appearing in the party platform, they're hypocrites? Or that they run on "abortion is bad" but then fail to legislate against it? Or that they run on "abortion is bad" but fail to believe/act on the stronger belief "abortion should be classified as murder"?

I'm sure you'll accuse me of playing games, but I really don't know what claim you're making.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254965][QUOTE=cheesehead;254960]"Running as a Business Ploy

Some candidates use the presidential campaign as just another way to make money."

[URL]http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/running-as-a-business-ploy-20110309[/URL][/QUOTE]
Exactly! That's the sort of thing that a system would need to avoid. And it would need to avoid it in a manner that is not easily corrupted or abused.[/QUOTE]"Exactly!" -- Exactly what?

"the sort of thing" -- [U]What[/U] sort of thing?

"a system would need to avoid" -- To which [U]system[/U] do you refer?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;254972]"Exactly!" -- Exactly what?

"the sort of thing" -- [U]What[/U] sort of thing?

"a system would need to avoid" -- To which [U]system[/U] do you refer?[/QUOTE]

See post #29 ff.

[QUOTE=fivemack;254966]
If your military requires lawyers and doctors, its choices are to train its own and then tie them down with the largest bolts available (for example, extremely generous pensions that take twenty years to vest) or to pay like the private sector.[/QUOTE]
I'd be more likely to believe this to be the calculation, yet this is only a specific case of what all lieutenant colonels are paid, which is in turn a specific case of what applies for all ranks. A sergeant could retire before 40 with a $25K pension and medical for life.

What are the arguments for doing this in all the other cases? Are all lieutenant colonels so valuable?

For JAGs and doctors, I would prefer a high enough compensation to keep them in the service to begin with. I can't say that there's much point in giving people a generous out after 20 years. Why not pay them up front if you need them, and wish them good luck if they choose to leave at 45, as is the case in the private sector?

This reminds me of a similar issue: underpaid federal judges. Both JAGs and judges can make large sums of money by leaving for private law firms which handle the subtleties of lobbying and litigation involving the government. I have a hard time believing that generous pensions for early retirement woud do anything but encourage JAGs to leave the military ASAP.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254973]See post #29 ff.[/QUOTE]The article's NOT about public campaign funding. So what was your,

"Exactly! That's the sort of thing that a system would need to avoid. And it would need to avoid it in a manner that is not easily corrupted or abused."

about?

Did you [strike]actually[/strike] "exactly" read the article, not just the title?