I have written and will mail on Monday two Freedom of Information Act requests to the State of Hawaii for copies of Barack Obama's birth certificate as per Larwyn's suggestion. Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs argues that there may be no problem with Mr. Obama's birth certificate, but the State of Hawaii and Mr. Obama have an ethical obligation to come clean on this matter.
Mark Bennett, Attorney General
Department of the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Dear Mr. Bennett:
This is a freedom of information act request for the birth certificate of Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961. Because Mr. Obama is a public figure and because of the importance of this information to the public welfare the ordinary rules of confidentiality do not apply. I will be happy to pay your normal processing fee.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Janice Okubo
Department of Health
State of Hawaii
1250 Punchbowl Street Room 326
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813
Dear Ms. Okubo:
This is a freedom of information act request for the birth certificate of Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961. Because Mr. Obama is a public figure and because of the importance of this information to the public welfare the ordinary rules of confidentiality do not apply. I will be happy to pay your normal processing fee.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Pamela Geller and the Obama Birth Certificate
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugged (hat tip Larwyn) cites Israel Insider about the missing Obama birth certificate. There is uncertainty about the authenticity of the copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate produced on Obama's fight the Smears site. Geller's correspondent Joe has analyzed the birth certificate and found a potential seal, though Israel Insider questions it. Geller concludes that the seal is really there and suggests:
"I believe the Obama campaign would deliberately keep such a question alive to diminish the veracity of the real scandals Obama is guilty of (Rezko, Auchi, Wright, Nation of Islam, Malley, Powers, Odinga, corruption, lies etc."
Perhaps Mr. Obama should make the birth certificate available and Republicans should emphasize a range of criticisms. There are many to choose from.
"I believe the Obama campaign would deliberately keep such a question alive to diminish the veracity of the real scandals Obama is guilty of (Rezko, Auchi, Wright, Nation of Islam, Malley, Powers, Odinga, corruption, lies etc."
Perhaps Mr. Obama should make the birth certificate available and Republicans should emphasize a range of criticisms. There are many to choose from.
Two Ways To Organize a Society
Two ways to organize society are equity and achievement. Under the equity principle there can be economic inequality only if it is associated with equal opportunity and if the inequality optimally benefits the disadvantaged. Under an achievement theory, society is best off if it is organized so that the quantity and quality of achievement is optimized. Thus, a nation like Athens would certainly not qualify under the equity principle because there was slavery, but it would qualify under the achievement principle as one of the great societies in history.
Principles like these are not easily tested empirically. Only through history can we judge whether societies that operate under one optimizing rule or the other have worked best. One problem is execution. Few societies (ancient Sparta is one) have been able to establish equal opportunity. If they could, the result would likely be unsatisfactory. The poorest and the wealthiest people in society would possibly be much worse off precisely because of equality of opportunity. This is because achievement is the source of progress and achievement is possible only if there is inequality.
In his book Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius* Robert W. Weisberg of Temple University argues against the idea that creativity results from genius or luck. Rather, creativity results from focused application of ordinary thinking based on well-developed expertise. Creative works are not "set breaking" and do not constitute "revolutions", but rather build on prior inventions and pre-existing knowledge bases. Weisberg writes that to encourage creativity in the young "we should emphasize development of deep expertise in a particular domain"**. As well, motivation to create plays a role. To motivate people to be creative "exposure at an early age to subject matter in the arts and sciences, structured in such a way as to appeal to the young, can result in a child's naturally developing an interest in some area. At a later age exposure to mentors can play multiple roles." Even with respect to prodigies: "these skills will not express themselves without strong support from the environment, especially the family, as we saw...in the case of Mozart and Picasso. Thus, even the most talented must have the right environment if their talent is to bear fruit."
If Weisberg is right, then achievement depends in part on unique opportunities. It is impossible to provide the same nurturing to all, nor would it be desirable. To create a society where all have the opportunity to be Mozart, it would be necessary to exclude anyone's being a Picasso. To create a society where Mozart would not be entitled to the rewards of Mozart's work would likely de-motivate him. But even the worst-off member of society benefits to a large degree from Mozart's creative genius (or Puff Daddy's).
It is true that the achievement theory leads to distributional inequity. Some achieve more than others, and this in part is due to skills developed in the family at an early age. But does that mean that the achievement theory is inequitable? It may be that the worst off is best off in a society that stimulates achievement through the recognition of basic rights.
In addition, there is the question of pragmatic execution. What have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of equity and what have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of achievement? When the equity principle was first brought to public awareness in the eighteenth century there was considerable injustice. (It also is true that few societies had been organized along any lines but tribal at that time.) Throughout the nineteenth century, societies such as England and America that were organized on the achievement principle were attacked as inequitable. Yet, in the twentieth century, societies that were organized on the equity principle, such as the Soviet Union, Nazi German and Red China, committed far worse atrocities than any in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Today, the United States and England have increasingly been organized along equity principles, but the two societies are less, not more, equitable than they were under the achievement principle.
Thus, there is a gulf between the theory of equity and the results of the equitable philosophy because human nature and human power needs do not coincide with the cool rationality of a philosopher's anticipating outcomes under a "veil of ignorance". Thus, the resolution of the dispute between equity and achievement needs to be reviewed empirically and experimentally, not through philosophical speculation.
Achievement may be defined as a creative act that merits social recognition. The social recognition evolves because the creative act is helpful to at least a portion of society. The best way to motivate socially useful action is through fair reward. Because there is no true way to determine the fairness of rewards, and because human reason is inevitably self-serving and biased, the fairest way is to let the marketplace determine them.
*Robert W. Weisberg, Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1993.
**As well, this contradicts the idea that basic skills are unimportant to creativity, a fundamental precept of progressive education.
Principles like these are not easily tested empirically. Only through history can we judge whether societies that operate under one optimizing rule or the other have worked best. One problem is execution. Few societies (ancient Sparta is one) have been able to establish equal opportunity. If they could, the result would likely be unsatisfactory. The poorest and the wealthiest people in society would possibly be much worse off precisely because of equality of opportunity. This is because achievement is the source of progress and achievement is possible only if there is inequality.
In his book Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius* Robert W. Weisberg of Temple University argues against the idea that creativity results from genius or luck. Rather, creativity results from focused application of ordinary thinking based on well-developed expertise. Creative works are not "set breaking" and do not constitute "revolutions", but rather build on prior inventions and pre-existing knowledge bases. Weisberg writes that to encourage creativity in the young "we should emphasize development of deep expertise in a particular domain"**. As well, motivation to create plays a role. To motivate people to be creative "exposure at an early age to subject matter in the arts and sciences, structured in such a way as to appeal to the young, can result in a child's naturally developing an interest in some area. At a later age exposure to mentors can play multiple roles." Even with respect to prodigies: "these skills will not express themselves without strong support from the environment, especially the family, as we saw...in the case of Mozart and Picasso. Thus, even the most talented must have the right environment if their talent is to bear fruit."
If Weisberg is right, then achievement depends in part on unique opportunities. It is impossible to provide the same nurturing to all, nor would it be desirable. To create a society where all have the opportunity to be Mozart, it would be necessary to exclude anyone's being a Picasso. To create a society where Mozart would not be entitled to the rewards of Mozart's work would likely de-motivate him. But even the worst-off member of society benefits to a large degree from Mozart's creative genius (or Puff Daddy's).
It is true that the achievement theory leads to distributional inequity. Some achieve more than others, and this in part is due to skills developed in the family at an early age. But does that mean that the achievement theory is inequitable? It may be that the worst off is best off in a society that stimulates achievement through the recognition of basic rights.
In addition, there is the question of pragmatic execution. What have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of equity and what have been the outcomes of societies organized along the lines of achievement? When the equity principle was first brought to public awareness in the eighteenth century there was considerable injustice. (It also is true that few societies had been organized along any lines but tribal at that time.) Throughout the nineteenth century, societies such as England and America that were organized on the achievement principle were attacked as inequitable. Yet, in the twentieth century, societies that were organized on the equity principle, such as the Soviet Union, Nazi German and Red China, committed far worse atrocities than any in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Today, the United States and England have increasingly been organized along equity principles, but the two societies are less, not more, equitable than they were under the achievement principle.
Thus, there is a gulf between the theory of equity and the results of the equitable philosophy because human nature and human power needs do not coincide with the cool rationality of a philosopher's anticipating outcomes under a "veil of ignorance". Thus, the resolution of the dispute between equity and achievement needs to be reviewed empirically and experimentally, not through philosophical speculation.
Achievement may be defined as a creative act that merits social recognition. The social recognition evolves because the creative act is helpful to at least a portion of society. The best way to motivate socially useful action is through fair reward. Because there is no true way to determine the fairness of rewards, and because human reason is inevitably self-serving and biased, the fairest way is to let the marketplace determine them.
*Robert W. Weisberg, Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1993.
**As well, this contradicts the idea that basic skills are unimportant to creativity, a fundamental precept of progressive education.
The Federalist No. 13 and Economies of Scale in Government
In the Federalist Number 13 Hamilton argues that an advantage to adoption of the Constitution and establishment of a unified nation as opposed to 13 separate states or three regional confederacies is efficiency that results from economies of scale. Hamilton argues:
"No well-informed man will suppose that the affairs of such a confederacy can be properly regulated by a government less comprehensive in its origins or institutions than that which has been proposed by the convention. When the dimensions of a State attain to a certain magnitude, it requires the same energy of government and the same forms of administration which are requisite in one of much greater extent."
Hamilton was right about the costs of government. The cost of governing 3 million people is much less than twice the cost of governing 1.5 million people. But Hamilton could not have foreseen the increasingly strategic role that government plays in economic development. That is, a range of federal policies restrict and influence business decision making in ways that Hamilton could not have foreseen. These include the creation of money, the social security system, funding of urban renewal, health plans for the elderly. Hamilton did advocate central banking and federal involvement in the economy, such as the creation of a state manufacturing incubator, but he could not have imagined the degree to which government influences economic behavior in our world.
The choice between centralization and decentralization involves two considerations: the economies of scale that Hamilton identified, and the creativity and experimentation that decentralization permits. Thirteen states permit thirteen approaches to regulation. Two or three confederacies would permit two or three approaches. Diversity of strategies permit comparisons and learning. Hamilton was right with respect to the Constitution, but he overstates the value of economies of scale as they might apply to our world.
"No well-informed man will suppose that the affairs of such a confederacy can be properly regulated by a government less comprehensive in its origins or institutions than that which has been proposed by the convention. When the dimensions of a State attain to a certain magnitude, it requires the same energy of government and the same forms of administration which are requisite in one of much greater extent."
Hamilton was right about the costs of government. The cost of governing 3 million people is much less than twice the cost of governing 1.5 million people. But Hamilton could not have foreseen the increasingly strategic role that government plays in economic development. That is, a range of federal policies restrict and influence business decision making in ways that Hamilton could not have foreseen. These include the creation of money, the social security system, funding of urban renewal, health plans for the elderly. Hamilton did advocate central banking and federal involvement in the economy, such as the creation of a state manufacturing incubator, but he could not have imagined the degree to which government influences economic behavior in our world.
The choice between centralization and decentralization involves two considerations: the economies of scale that Hamilton identified, and the creativity and experimentation that decentralization permits. Thirteen states permit thirteen approaches to regulation. Two or three confederacies would permit two or three approaches. Diversity of strategies permit comparisons and learning. Hamilton was right with respect to the Constitution, but he overstates the value of economies of scale as they might apply to our world.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Left As Teen-Age Rebellion
The programs that the left advocates have done little to help and instead have harmed the poor. American inner cities deteriorated in response to urban renewal and welfare programs. The socialist revolution in Russia resulted in the starvation of millions of peasants and a wide range of ethnic hatreds. The Chinese socialists have oppressed and murdered Tibetans and the religious as well as millions of politically incorrect businessmen and bourgeoisie. More people have been slaughtered by the left and by socialism than by the advocates of any other creed or belief system. There has not been a socialist economy that has produced economic progress, and the general result of socialism as in Cuba and North Korea have been violent suppression and impoverishment of the poor. Yet, sociopathically, the academic left continues to justify, rationalize and lie about the effects of its programs.
In America, the left advocates a Kafkaesque program of large institutions, big government and centralized control. Its program includes not only the bureaucratization of medicine but also of investment, self-defense, business and political speech. The failure of its programs do not deter its commitment to rigid, large scale enterprises. For instance, the left remains obsessively attached to social security and the Federal Reserve Bank despite dismal benefit/contribution ratios from the former and inflation and corruption from the latter.
The left's recidivist advocacy of failed ideas can be explained in three ways. One, the left might be depicted as religiously obsessed with its ideas, and riddled with power needs, and so habituated to its love of government and centralized power despite seventy years of repeated failure. Two, the left is cognitively limited. Although many on the left are not smart, many are smart enough to grasp the pragmatic implications of its program. So this is at best a partial explanation. Three, the left is economically motivated.
There is a recurrent theme that goes something like, "Oh, isn't it amazing that George Soros or this or that businessman is a billionaire and yet he favors our (left-wing) positions". Conversely, many Libertarians and conservatives conceive of businessmen as supportive of the free market position, and then are astounded when businessmen do not support that view. In reality, the left's views coincide fairly neatly with the views of big business. Big business believes in big government because without it it would not be so big. The political scientist Charles Lindblom in his book on market economies remarks on the "privileged" position of big business, and indeed, since the days of Hamilton big business has relied on centralized government. There is no evidence that government support of big business helps the public in any way. Rather, subsidization makes firms less efficient and less customer oriented. For instance, cable television, telephone, public utilities, health care, banking and insurance firms are subsidized and they are among the least customer-responsive firms. The reason is that government regulation reduces competition.
Chief among government subsidies to big business is first the Fed, which provides interest rate and loan subsidies to business, and second, higher education, which provides training to large firms, to a degree at public expense. Thus, professors' livelihoods are linked to the welfare of big business and they themselves enjoy subsidies just like the ones big business enjoys. Without big business demand for graduates, there would be no demand for universities. So why are academics so often critical of big business?
In fact, university professors are NOT critical of big business where it counts, and their criticisms are not adverse to big business's interests. Big business is not adverse to enhanced central control, socialism, regulation and the mixed economy because such control eliminates competition. Universities have, as well, been the chief advocate of central banking through economics and business programs. Big business would not be so big without the Fed, and without the regulation that historians and sociologists advocate. There are few economists who question central banking, and of all the issues this is the one that big business cares about most.
University professors depend on big business much as teen-agers depend on their parents. Without big business demand for graduates, there would be no demand for universities. Thus, like teen-agers, university professors rebel by criticizing big business's hypocrisy, its lack of "social responsibility", and its selfishness, even as the professors themselves are equally hypocritical, equally irresponsible socially and even more selfish than business executives. But, like teen-agers, the university professors return home to be fed at the end of the day, and find the possibility that they will be thrown out and sent to work unthinkable. Moreover, the upshot of their criticisms, like teen-agers', is a psychological replica of the institutions and habits that they criticize. In other words, they claim to criticize big business even as they advocate systems that are necessary to it. In the end, the university professors are the chief proponents of big business capitalism, helping it by diverting attention to shrill issues like diversity and global warming.
In America, the left advocates a Kafkaesque program of large institutions, big government and centralized control. Its program includes not only the bureaucratization of medicine but also of investment, self-defense, business and political speech. The failure of its programs do not deter its commitment to rigid, large scale enterprises. For instance, the left remains obsessively attached to social security and the Federal Reserve Bank despite dismal benefit/contribution ratios from the former and inflation and corruption from the latter.
The left's recidivist advocacy of failed ideas can be explained in three ways. One, the left might be depicted as religiously obsessed with its ideas, and riddled with power needs, and so habituated to its love of government and centralized power despite seventy years of repeated failure. Two, the left is cognitively limited. Although many on the left are not smart, many are smart enough to grasp the pragmatic implications of its program. So this is at best a partial explanation. Three, the left is economically motivated.
There is a recurrent theme that goes something like, "Oh, isn't it amazing that George Soros or this or that businessman is a billionaire and yet he favors our (left-wing) positions". Conversely, many Libertarians and conservatives conceive of businessmen as supportive of the free market position, and then are astounded when businessmen do not support that view. In reality, the left's views coincide fairly neatly with the views of big business. Big business believes in big government because without it it would not be so big. The political scientist Charles Lindblom in his book on market economies remarks on the "privileged" position of big business, and indeed, since the days of Hamilton big business has relied on centralized government. There is no evidence that government support of big business helps the public in any way. Rather, subsidization makes firms less efficient and less customer oriented. For instance, cable television, telephone, public utilities, health care, banking and insurance firms are subsidized and they are among the least customer-responsive firms. The reason is that government regulation reduces competition.
Chief among government subsidies to big business is first the Fed, which provides interest rate and loan subsidies to business, and second, higher education, which provides training to large firms, to a degree at public expense. Thus, professors' livelihoods are linked to the welfare of big business and they themselves enjoy subsidies just like the ones big business enjoys. Without big business demand for graduates, there would be no demand for universities. So why are academics so often critical of big business?
In fact, university professors are NOT critical of big business where it counts, and their criticisms are not adverse to big business's interests. Big business is not adverse to enhanced central control, socialism, regulation and the mixed economy because such control eliminates competition. Universities have, as well, been the chief advocate of central banking through economics and business programs. Big business would not be so big without the Fed, and without the regulation that historians and sociologists advocate. There are few economists who question central banking, and of all the issues this is the one that big business cares about most.
University professors depend on big business much as teen-agers depend on their parents. Without big business demand for graduates, there would be no demand for universities. Thus, like teen-agers, university professors rebel by criticizing big business's hypocrisy, its lack of "social responsibility", and its selfishness, even as the professors themselves are equally hypocritical, equally irresponsible socially and even more selfish than business executives. But, like teen-agers, the university professors return home to be fed at the end of the day, and find the possibility that they will be thrown out and sent to work unthinkable. Moreover, the upshot of their criticisms, like teen-agers', is a psychological replica of the institutions and habits that they criticize. In other words, they claim to criticize big business even as they advocate systems that are necessary to it. In the end, the university professors are the chief proponents of big business capitalism, helping it by diverting attention to shrill issues like diversity and global warming.
Letter to Senator Joe Lieberman Concerning Oil Speculators
Dear Senator Lieberman:
I contributed to your recent campaign fund because I respect your views on the Iraqi War and your courage to stand up to the left-wing ideologues who have increasingly dominated the Democratic Party. I DISAGREE with your recent proposal to limit commodity speculation by pension funds. While short term price fluctuations over 1-2 years may result from speculation, if there is no underlying demand to support the price increases then the increases will reverse. On the other hand, no one really knows whether the price increases in oil result from speculation or from demand ensuing from general inflation. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Federal Reserve Bank has inflated the number of dollars in circulation around the World by a significant percentage, approximately 8 percent, over the past 25 years. These dollars have reduced interest rates, stimulating economic activity that has not been all that productive. In other words, the Fed has caused the sub-prime crisis, the tech bubble and probably stimulated excessive investment in commodities in the early 1990s. The excessive commodity investment led to low commodity prices in the 1990s (my former employer's stock, INCO or International Nickel, was selling at $10 per share for almost two decades). In turn, commodities firms closed. As well, farm land was used to develop real estate projects. This has led to shortages now in a range of commodities, to include milk, bread, gold and oil. I note that in the recent period of high gasoline prices, the gold price increases of the past 5 years have abated and gold has been below $900 for the past few weeks. If speculation is causing a run-up in oil prices, why isn't it causing a run-up in gold prices?
The correct response to excessive monetary expansion is not to limit speculation but rather to change the institutional structure, which is corrupt, that has led to the creation of large dollar investments in hedge funds, investment banks, Enron, and Bear Stearns. In other words, the Fed is corrupt and it should be changed institutionally. I believe it should be abolished in favor of competitive money supplies. That is, the money supply should be privatized. Illegalizing speculation will not end the problem of increasing gas and other prices. You are attempting to stop water from breaking through the dyke by passing a law against the ocean tides. Your proposal is misguided.
I contributed to your recent campaign fund because I respect your views on the Iraqi War and your courage to stand up to the left-wing ideologues who have increasingly dominated the Democratic Party. I DISAGREE with your recent proposal to limit commodity speculation by pension funds. While short term price fluctuations over 1-2 years may result from speculation, if there is no underlying demand to support the price increases then the increases will reverse. On the other hand, no one really knows whether the price increases in oil result from speculation or from demand ensuing from general inflation. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Federal Reserve Bank has inflated the number of dollars in circulation around the World by a significant percentage, approximately 8 percent, over the past 25 years. These dollars have reduced interest rates, stimulating economic activity that has not been all that productive. In other words, the Fed has caused the sub-prime crisis, the tech bubble and probably stimulated excessive investment in commodities in the early 1990s. The excessive commodity investment led to low commodity prices in the 1990s (my former employer's stock, INCO or International Nickel, was selling at $10 per share for almost two decades). In turn, commodities firms closed. As well, farm land was used to develop real estate projects. This has led to shortages now in a range of commodities, to include milk, bread, gold and oil. I note that in the recent period of high gasoline prices, the gold price increases of the past 5 years have abated and gold has been below $900 for the past few weeks. If speculation is causing a run-up in oil prices, why isn't it causing a run-up in gold prices?
The correct response to excessive monetary expansion is not to limit speculation but rather to change the institutional structure, which is corrupt, that has led to the creation of large dollar investments in hedge funds, investment banks, Enron, and Bear Stearns. In other words, the Fed is corrupt and it should be changed institutionally. I believe it should be abolished in favor of competitive money supplies. That is, the money supply should be privatized. Illegalizing speculation will not end the problem of increasing gas and other prices. You are attempting to stop water from breaking through the dyke by passing a law against the ocean tides. Your proposal is misguided.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Bowen's Boondoggle
According to Sarah Garland of the New York Sun, in 2006, the New York City schoolteachers negotiated a contract that will expire in 2009. The contract gave the teachers a 7.1% annual raise over 2008-2009.
The Sun quotes the United Federation of Teachers' President Randi Weingarten:
"Pointing to a total increase in teacher salaries of more than 40% since 2002, Ms. Weingarten said, "Finally we are making real progress."
In contrast to 40% gains in teacher salaries, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), the union that represents the faculty of the City University of New York, in the last contract that ran from 2004 to 2007 negotiated a 6% increase over three years.
On June 23, 2008 Barbara Bowen, the PSC president, released a letter describing a new contract that runs from 2007 to 2010. It includes the following increases:
****3.15%, effective September 20, 2007
****4.00%, effective October 6, 2008
****3.00%, effective October 20, 2009
In other words, the Barbara Bowen and the PSC negotiated increases at about half of what New York City's schoolteachers received. And this on top of increases less than half of what the schoolteachers received in the last contract as well. In comparison to the 40% from 2002-9, the PSC has won 16% from 2004-10, about 40% of what the teachers have won.
Despite this dismal performance President Bowen writes in her letter:
"The tentative contract is a principled, creative settlement that combines increases throughout the salary scale with special increases at the top and the bottom. It includes a breakthrough on parental and family care, introduces a system for sharing sick days with those in need, adds a hundred new Lecturer lines reserved for experienced part-time faculty, and holds the line against management's agenda of corporatizing the University. The tentative settlement also includes new equity features, such as a salary differential for College Laboratory Technicians and Assistants to HEO with relevant masters or doctoral degrees, and an extra increase in each step of the Lecturer title. The tentative agreement comes with the strong support of the PSC negotiating committee."
Just a few days before the deal's announcement, the indomitable Sharad Karkhanis in his Patriot Returns newsletter expressed dismay at the union leadership's performance; its inept management; and governmental officials' indifference to the union leadership. He exhorts Bowen:
The PSC's propaganda paper (Clarion) boasts of your trips to Albany and your meetings with the mighty and powerful. But it seems to us that all this is baloney. Neither the New York media nor government authorities consider you relevant or powerful. You can be safely ignored, laughed at, forgotten. We wouldn't care, except that also forgotten, as a consequence, are the people you represent. No wonder you cannot get a good contract for CUNY faculty. Your tactics have deemed you irrelevant to the real media and those in decision making positions in the state. You are a failure in the eyes of the membership. They will not return you to that office again next year, Barbara.
For how long will the CUNY faculty be willing to tolerate the PSC leadership's incompetence?
The Sun quotes the United Federation of Teachers' President Randi Weingarten:
"Pointing to a total increase in teacher salaries of more than 40% since 2002, Ms. Weingarten said, "Finally we are making real progress."
In contrast to 40% gains in teacher salaries, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), the union that represents the faculty of the City University of New York, in the last contract that ran from 2004 to 2007 negotiated a 6% increase over three years.
On June 23, 2008 Barbara Bowen, the PSC president, released a letter describing a new contract that runs from 2007 to 2010. It includes the following increases:
****3.15%, effective September 20, 2007
****4.00%, effective October 6, 2008
****3.00%, effective October 20, 2009
In other words, the Barbara Bowen and the PSC negotiated increases at about half of what New York City's schoolteachers received. And this on top of increases less than half of what the schoolteachers received in the last contract as well. In comparison to the 40% from 2002-9, the PSC has won 16% from 2004-10, about 40% of what the teachers have won.
Despite this dismal performance President Bowen writes in her letter:
"The tentative contract is a principled, creative settlement that combines increases throughout the salary scale with special increases at the top and the bottom. It includes a breakthrough on parental and family care, introduces a system for sharing sick days with those in need, adds a hundred new Lecturer lines reserved for experienced part-time faculty, and holds the line against management's agenda of corporatizing the University. The tentative settlement also includes new equity features, such as a salary differential for College Laboratory Technicians and Assistants to HEO with relevant masters or doctoral degrees, and an extra increase in each step of the Lecturer title. The tentative agreement comes with the strong support of the PSC negotiating committee."
Just a few days before the deal's announcement, the indomitable Sharad Karkhanis in his Patriot Returns newsletter expressed dismay at the union leadership's performance; its inept management; and governmental officials' indifference to the union leadership. He exhorts Bowen:
The PSC's propaganda paper (Clarion) boasts of your trips to Albany and your meetings with the mighty and powerful. But it seems to us that all this is baloney. Neither the New York media nor government authorities consider you relevant or powerful. You can be safely ignored, laughed at, forgotten. We wouldn't care, except that also forgotten, as a consequence, are the people you represent. No wonder you cannot get a good contract for CUNY faculty. Your tactics have deemed you irrelevant to the real media and those in decision making positions in the state. You are a failure in the eyes of the membership. They will not return you to that office again next year, Barbara.
For how long will the CUNY faculty be willing to tolerate the PSC leadership's incompetence?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
