Inabilities of State Government

Today I received an email from my professional organization, NCAE (North Carolina Association of Educators) - it is not a union since North Carolina is a "right-to-work" state, any such combination would be seen as in restraint of trade and would therefore be illegal... whatever. Anyway...

Today NCAE sent me an email highlighting some disturbing information concerning a member of the NC Senate. Essentially, this Republican Senator is a liar. There is no mincing words, he is a liar. Let me explain.

As is the case across the country, North Carolina is no exception when it comes to budget shortfalls, especially in this difficult economic time. And, according to the NC State Constitution, the Governor MUST propose a balanced budget based on estimation of tax revenue for the upcoming 2 years (the North Carolina budget is biennial, it is a two year budget). This budget must then be approved by the NC General Assembly (NC House and NC Senate), just like any other bill. Once the governor proposes her budget, the House reviews it and makes its changes, followed by the Senate. Fortunately, the NC Senate rejected the House's budget, now the dirty fight begins.

The House's budget proposes to cut THOUSANDS of educators' positions across the state, especially in the classroom. Meanwhile the Senate Minority Leader, Phil Berger (R) says that there will only be a cut of 45 positions, and those will be from the Department of Public Education, positions that are mostly vacant at this time. Here is the email:

Berger's Whopper on Educator Cuts

Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) sent emails to NCAE members this weekend claiming that the House budget only cuts 45 teaching positions this coming year.

Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) sent disturbing emails to NCAE members this weekend, including educators whose teaching positions are facing elimination, and erroneously contended the "House budget cuts 45 funded positions, not 12,000, not 1,000, not even 100."

Berger even went so far as to claim that "NCAE is spreading false information" about the severity of budget cuts and even offered the possibility that the organization was disseminating a "purposeful lie."

Further down in the email, the longtime Republican Senate leader provided a web link (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/sessions/2009/budget/2009/budgetreport06-13-09.pdf ) for members to review the 214-page House budget proposal for themselves.

"It was an odd link to provide in an email message falsely claiming only 45 positions were eliminated," said Government Relations Manager Cecil Banks. "The documents explain with no ambiguity whatsoever that thousands of educator positions are cut in the House budget proposal."

Banks points to page 21, item 20 in Berger's attachment. There it provides a $183 million cut by increasing class size in grades 4-12. "Where does he think the state will realize that cut?", asked Banks. "The $183 million comes from eliminating about 2,500 teachers."

Item 22 of the same page above, eliminates 200 literacy coaches at a cut of $12 million in the budget.

On page 22, line 24 of the document, over 4,000 teacher assistants are completely gone in the 3rd grade under the House plan at a cut of over $130 million. "There's also the non-instructional support positions facing elimination," said Banks.

So why is Berger claiming only 45 educator positions are cut?

Sen. Berger, shown here with Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam, his Republican counterpart in the House, is known for his right-wing ideology and anti-public schools stance.

DPB can only guess (or hope) that Sen. Berger has not reviewed the House budget carefully. Short of that, Sen. Berger seems to be referencing page 23, item 35 of the House budget linked above. There it cuts 45 positions at $3.2 million from the NC Department of Public Instruction.

"It is mind-boggling how a five-term senator could find that one line-item and come to the erroneous conclusion that ONLY 45 positions face elimination," said Banks. "And then to question NCAE for simply reading what is clearly in black-and white. This is very disturbing."

To read the full text of Sen. Berger's email to a member on Saturday, click here.

Feel free to send Sen. Berger a note at phil.berger@ncleg.net. His office number is (919) 7....

And, Sen. Berger, feel free to drop NCAE an apology at sheri.strickland@ncae.org. DPB will even print the full retraction.

This is the nonsense that this state must endure. Either this Senator did not read the bill himself and is making his decisions on ignorance, or he he believes that the people are ignorant and will not read the bill themselves. (Actually, I am thinking he is both - ignorant and believes the people are ignorant). Never have cuts to education solved problems, they have only created new ones. At the same time, I am not, myself, ignorant to the need to tighten our belts when necessary, but cutting more than 10,000 teaching positions is NOT tightening of one's belt, it is stupidity.

April 16, 2009 - Discretionary Fiscal Policy

Did you do it? Did you get it done? Of course I am talking about your taxes, yesterday was the deadline. Or, did you buy tea bags to protest taxes? That is right, yesterday, April 15, "Tax Day" became the day to protest increased government spending of the new presidential administration. As a history teacher, I definitely appreciate the symbolic "tea party" held yesterday in rememberence of the Boston Tea Party to protest the British tax on tea. (Actually, it wasn't so much that a new tax was imposed on tea, instead it was lack of tax on the tea sold directly by the British East India company that made their tea cheaper than that sold by the retailers in the colonies.) From the historic Boston Tea Party the slogan, "No taxation without Representation" really began to take hold. Unfortunately, no such memorable slogan will emerge from yesterday's protest. The only thing I recgonize from the protest is the ignorance of the protestors and the short memory they have of government spending.

A little research* will show that despite the size of government spending proposed (or due to be proposed) by the Obama administration, the Bush administration budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) is greater and contributed more to the federal deficit. And yet, yesterday's protest, supported (maybe even "sponsored") by Fox News was to demonstrate disploeasure with Obama's plan. To take the analysis further, according to the Obama plan, more money will be spent in America and less on foreign countries than Bush's plan. The Obama plan is designed to rebuild the US while the Bush plans were designed to rebuild other countries, like Iraq and Afghanistan. So I wonder why Bush's plans were not protested as vigorously as Obama's (which has not actually been presented yet)?

This is the essence of Fiscal Policy. Fiscal Policy refers to the tax revenues (T) and government expenditures (G) proposed by the government. What is proposed each year by the President is considered non-discretionary spending, while money spent for "incidentals" is considered discretionary spending. The budget is proposed based on anticipated tax revenue assuming full-employment**. This is called the "Full Employment Budget." The goal is for G = T resulting in no deficit and no surplus. However, since the economy is always affected by the business cycle, cyclical unemployment s never 0% and will result in a T less than expected. When this happens, G > T, a deficit results. Government actually spends more than is efficient which is an automatic result of Fiscal Policy - built-in stabilizers. The built-in stabilization of Fiscal Policy puts more money back into the economy than was removed by taxes and acts to stimulate growth, albeit, in small quantities.

If the government anticipates a shortfall of tax revenue, the government can adjust Fiscal Policy to combat or compensate for the short fall. There are two options: 1) increase G (Keynesian economic philosophy used during the Great Depression which was limited in its effectiveness due to protectionist trade policies that prevented the rest of the world from recovering) 2) decreasing T. In both situation, more money is allowed to circulate in the economy than under the "normal" circumstances which will either slow the economic "slide" or revitalize economic growth. President Obama will surely attempt to apply discretionary fiscal policy in order to help improve the economy. He will attempt to increase G to create new jobs to but unemployed back to work and will lower T in order to allow people to keep more of their income.

FY09 Budget (Bush):
T= $2,699,947,000,000
G= $3,107,355,000,000
Deficit = $407,408,000,000

FY10 Budget (Obama) Projected/Estimated:
T= $2,931,348,000,000
G= $3,091,340,000,000
Deficit= $159,992,000,000

(The above data includes discretionary and non-discretionary spending.)

The above data shows a few things:

1. Tax Revenue will be higher for the first Obama budget than the last Bush budget;
2. Government Spending will be lower for the first Obama budget than the last Bush budget;
3. The Budget Deficit will be less for the first Obama budget than the last Bush budget.
   

What is most disturbing is Fox News and their weapons ready to open fire on President Obama the first chance they get, even if they do not report the entire story. Is it true, the government will have to spend more (bigger government)? No. Will it create larger budget deficits? No. But that is not how Fox is going to report it. And then, despite bigger government under Bush, Fox News and Republican cronies are crying "Socialism" from the highest mountains. All of a sudden, after eight years of wasteful spending we are supposed to believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility? What the estimates are showing is that the Obama budget will try and fight the problems created by decades of poor fiscal responsibility across the economy, and do so with more responsibility than his predecessors. What it boils down to is this, ff they really want to see socialism, drastic measures are possible: forcing employers to retain workers, setting prices, rationing. If we do not want things to get to that point, actions must be taken now.

So save your money, don't buy your symbolic tea. Pay your taxes. Get back to work, and help make America productive again. And as for Fox News, stop sowing the seeds of revolt. Be a responsible media source, and don't tell us that your news reporting is "Fair and Balanced". You have already hoodwinked your pathetic sheep, the rest of us are too smart to listen except when what we hear is so ridiculous that we have no choice but spread some knowledge and useful information.

Fox News: "We report, you decide." I have decided, all glitz, no content.

* For information and data, visit the Government Printing Office (GPO), specifically the data for FY2009.

** Full-employment should not imply a situation where every eligible worker looking for work has a job, instead it occurs when there is no cyclical unemployment (those who are unemployed due to a "shrinking economy"). Those who are unemployed during full-employment are due to frictional unemployment (those in between jobs usually due to some "friction" between the employer and employee - perhaps something as simple as seeking better opportunity), seasonal unemployment (those whose jobs only exist a certain times of year, such as lifeguards), and structural unemployment (those who are out of work because their skills are now obsolete due to advances in technology).

The Wrestler

I didn't know what to think about this movie before I saw it. The movie, The Wrestler, is about a washed up wrestler who still has a passion for wrestling. Mickey Rourke, who is perfect for the part, gives a magnificent performance as the washed up wrestler, Randy "The Ram." After a heart attack and bypass surgery he finally comes to grips with his career, his family, and his life, none of which is really existent. At which point he must decide to fight one last epic battle, a rematch from twenty years earlier. He must decide, does he have anything left to live for, this last match will surely be the end of him. Marissa Tomei is is excellent as an aging stripper who no longer has a passion for her work while trying to raise her 9 year old son. Will she be able to save him and be the last hope for his otherwise shattered life?



The movie is very emotional. You truly feel his pain. You want him to be happy. But will it be that makes him happy? Throw in his last attempts to reconcile with his daughter and you have a powerful movie that tears at your heartstrings. I recommend it. 5 out of 5 stars.

The International

It has been a while since I posted, but I will give it another shot here.

I Went to the movies today. I just needed a day to watch a movie without worrying about a thing. The International is a suspense - action movie, just what I needed today. Clive Owen was good as the hero working desperately to expose the inner workings of a huge international bank and its attempt to control the world. The bank is not really wanting to take over the world, but instead to control money and debt in order to keep itself wealthy. And by debt, I do not mean your average American's credit card debt, I mean national debt and the debts accrued through armed conflict. This movie is full of murder, assassinations, gunfights, chases, and international intrigue around the world, from New York City, to Milan, Istanbul, Lyon, France, and more. I recommend it for as an escape from everyday doldrums of winter. But were this the summer, it would not be able to compete with the action movies typically released.



My first introduction to Clive Owen was in a video game, Wing Commander: Privateer 2: the Darkening. He is the main character, the player's character. Fun game, but kind of funny that he is a legitimate actor now when he was once no more than a video game character. It could be worse, Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) ended up where Clive Owen began, as the main character in the same series: Wing Commander.