For Government Workers, It’s Not Just Another Manic Monday
IN FACT, IT’S THEIR “FUN DAY”
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews – June 16, 2008 – Only in America can we whine about a moribund economy while maintaining lifestyles so excessive that they’re rivaled only by those of the Roman Empire.
Currently, it’s en vogue to bemoan your credit card balance, your thirsty gas tank, and your mounting grocery bills. This is in deep contrast to the economic turndowns (downturns?) of years past, when people would actually work harder, spend less, and find a way to “make do.”
Of course, there’s a lot of chit-chatty griping about cutting back, but it’s just gratuitous talk, a basis for an odd solidarity created by the fiction that life is just oh-so-hard. Also, it’s a darn good excuse to slack off, especially if you’re a government employee.
For example, in an effort to decrease gas needs (ostensibly), a Minnesota school district has recently eliminated Mondays.
That’s right: the Maccray school district in Minnesota recently concluded that education should take a back seat to money.
Which might make sense, at least until you run the numbers. Cutting out Mondays will net the district a whopping $65,000. It’s a sad testament to public schools – and the notion of education – that such a small sum takes priority over learning.
Of course if it were South Carolina, where no learning takes place, it might make sense.
It’s not only school employees who are benefiting from the bad economy. Recently, governmental offices across the nation have moved to four-day workweeks. Alabama, Wisconsin, and Arizona were among the first states to make the move, predictably citing gas prices as the reason.
This summer, instead of a catchy Justin Timberlake tune, we’re jamming to the collective national refrain of gas prices, inflation, and recession. And pitifully, most people are blind to the irony of reduced labor during a poor economy – an irony which is magnified by the fact that the reduced labor is supposed to provide financial relief.
Why not actually provide financial relief on the front end (i.e tax cuts) so that we don’t end up in a hot mess like this to begin with?
Comments
By mattheus mei on June 16th, 2008 at 6:12 am
The DOT is moving to an optional four day week here in town. And many of it’s people are taking advantage of it. They’re already making pronouncements on how it’ll cut down on traffic etc etc
By FWFIV on June 16th, 2008 at 6:31 am
These reduced work weeks almost always come with a reduction in pay to the affected employees. So they may not be as happy as you think to have a day off. If you were being truthful, gas prices are only part of the reason for the shorter work weeks, the organizations also save money money by not paying for a full week’s work. It is the same principle as eliminating overtime on hourly workers. Also, the slowdown has produced large job losses and layoffs in many industries. So your simplistic “work harder” advice does not apply if you have been let go from your job and can not find work.
By baker on June 16th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Very strange: Mande is complaining about government entities scrounging for ways to cut costs, while at the same time trumpeting tax cuts.
It’s obvious that the MN school system is hoping to cut the $65,000 in order to stay within its budget. The superintendent said the district was looking at further cuts to achieve this aim. We could argue all day long about the size of the overall budget or about various ways to cuts costs — I’m not sure going to a four-day week is the best — but it’s clear that the school officials are working to not go over budget (thereby hitting the taxpayer with added costs).
Just a question: Does anyone edit Mande’s work before it hits this site? Does Will or whoever read her stuff for basic factual errors (like the bit about race and DNA) or for simple logical flaws?
By Joseph Reynolds on June 16th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Most 4 day work weeks are actually 10 4 hour days..so no los to the taxpayer there..
and staffs are split so that not everyone works the same schedule..some work mon thru Thurs while others work Tues through Fri…so govt offices stay open..
but the money saved in gas alone for road crews, etc is significant, as the amount of gas used moving equipment from point A to point B is sometimes as much as what is spent actually doing the job..
By Mande on June 16th, 2008 at 9:43 am
@ Baker
if you’d put aside your neuroses for a moment you’d see that there is nothing odd about me pushing for tax cuts while bemoaning shorter work weeks and school weeks. These cutbacks have not been accompanied by tax breaks; taxpayers have not been refunded the difference between what they paid for and what they now receive. See? the taxes remain the same, yet taxpayers get less bang for their buck.
We wouldn’t stand for this kind of flim-flam from a business, so I see no reason why we must tolerate it from our government.
By FWFIV on June 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Many county and municipal offices are cutting back due to reduced tax revenue. Fewer building permits, business licenses etc. means less money for the department to operate. So the taxes have gone down and this is a situation where that is not good news.
Just about every company in the world charges more for their product or lowers the amount sold in packaging as costs rise. So we see this kind of “flim-flam” everywhere. This is a basis of the free market and capitalism. How can you not understand that it applies to government services as well?
By baker on June 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Mande, what do you think these officials are doing with the money? Pocketing it?
Basic deal: Governments have budgets. If it appears that revenue reductions or unforeseen costs are going to drive them over budget, then they’ve got choices to make.
In the case you cited, a school district has decided to try 4-day weeks. The article makes clear that rising gasoline costs have put a squeeze on the district’s budget. You may or may not believe that this is true, but I can hardly see much reason for doubt….Dozens of very heavy school buses, traveling hundreds of miles a week, starting and stopping routinely. OF COURSE it’s going to be a costly matter as fuel prices rise!!
I’m not sure I agree with the move to a 4-day week, but it isn’t being done to create some sort of windfall for anyone….and they aren’t creating “savings” that could be returned to the taxpayers. It’s to stay within budget. Again, the superintendent quoted said they were also looking for additional ways to cut in order to meet their budget.
And, yes, there are legitimate cost issues at play — gasoline prices for school buses would probably be number one, but there may have been revenue shortfalls (governments cannot always know exactly how much they receive from the state or from local property taxes before they set their upcoming year’s budget), as well. Sometimes school district or counties or whatever dip into what they call their “fund balance” — essentially a savings account for tough years — but some don’t have a lot in reserve or choose not to take that money out.
Government spending is, of course, debatable stuff. I’m not arguing that some school district in MN I know very little about is making all the right decisions. And I’m not saying that there may not be better ways to cut costs — in any government organization — than to go to a 4-day work week. I really don’t know.
But the notion that these governments are simply cutting back, reducing services, and stashing away money that could be returned to the taxpayers simply doesn’t square with how things work.
By baker on June 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
And FWFIV is exactly right:
As costs for businesses rise, they typically raise prices and/or cutback on services or products.
Even without linking it to rising costs, businesses look for ways to benefit their bottom line, to maximize profits. And when that happens, some folks get mad and take their business elsewhere. Some people get mad but pay the price for the stuff the want. Others think the whole thing’s great — an example of how a flourishing free market economy should work.
In any case, Mande clearly has it backwards: “We wouldn’t stand for this kind of flim-flam from a business….” In fact, we do….all the time.
By mikey g on June 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
baker…. A few questions for you as you have clearly taken control on this subject. Is this school dist.’s 4 day week for the remainder of this school year or for the 08-09 school year? Are teachers, principals, bus drivers, etc. taking a 20% pay cut or are they going to add 2 hours to the school day.
By baker on June 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Mikey — I’m just going off what was in the article Mande linked. Looks like they’re only adding one hour to the school day and that it is a plan for next school year.
I would argue that they should probably expand by two hours, and I would think that would be required per attendance laws in some states. The article does not say anything about salaries for employees, but it does quote an official as saying they’re looking for additional ways to cut expenses.
So, it appears that this could amount to a slight break in work hours for teachers, though the article does not say if other hours will be in some way required (additional teacher work-days, etc.) or how their pay might be affected.
By sid on June 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
baker & FWFIV,
You both are wrong on the “flim-flam” concept, I believe. The “flim-flam” to which Mande was referring, I think, is paying for an agreed product/service, THEN being told you are not geting that product/service, but a different/lesser product/service. In the case of govt., the taxes have been paid, the budget set, and the understood service established. Now the understood service is being changed. If you walk into a Lowe’s/Home Depot, order some supplies, pay for them, and then are charged extra when they arrive because the cost of delivering them went up, are you going to accept that? Or if they tell you you get 20% less of the supplies you bought because they didn’t load it all on the truck in order to save fuel, are you going to accept that? That’s the “flim-flam” analogy, if I’m reading Mande correctly. If you “stand for this kind of flim-flam from a business…all the time,” then you are just being taken advantage of by the businesses with which you deal.
By sid on June 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
–”Mande, what do you think these officials are doing with the money? Pocketing it?”
She probably thinks they are wasting it, not pocketing it. Drop the red herring argument. Govt. is notorious for wasting money, which I believe is the crux of her complaint. Rather than cut back on the agreed to, and paid for, services, try running more efficiently. Cutting back on fuel consumption sounds more efficient, but when it leads to less service (i.e., educating the kids), is that really more “efficient”?
–”Government spending is, of course, debatable stuff. I’m not arguing that some school district in MN I know very little about is making all the right decisions. And I’m not saying that there may not be better ways to cut costs — in any government organization — than to go to a 4-day work week. I really don’t know.
To out it bluntly, baker, if you freely admit that govt. spending is debatable, you know little about the school district in question, and that you don’t know if there are better ways to cut costs, why do you have such a hard-on over busting her chops over this article? Especially when you don’t seem to understand what it is she is saying?
By FWFIV on June 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
sid-
Interesting observation, it has yet to be proven anyone is getting a lesser product or service just because fewer people are working at a given time. What if the schools assigned all of the b.s. “busywork” to be done at home and spent the fewer hours in class to engage the students on a more challenging level.
As far as your Lowes analogy goes, I disagree. Business changes all the time to adapt to market fluctuations. Try going into Lowes and paying for building materials to be delivered twelve months from today. They would laugh you out of the store. Government can not adapt and change taxes as quickly so they must change actions to fit within a budget.
By Mande on June 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Thanks for breaking it down, Sid. =)
I’m not always great at appealing to the lowest common denominator.
By baker on June 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I think FWFIV has it about right here. We don’t know exactly how the four-day week will affect the “customers” — students and parents. Maybe the school district is taking measures it believes will keep instruction running the way it should. Again, I’m not advocating the plan, but we don’t know enough to say whether it’s a bad deal or not.
But more to the point, while people love to talk about government needing to be run like a business, the fact is that it is not a business.
Several thoughts:
**While budgets may be set well ahead of time, there is no guarantee that costs will remain the same. In addition to things like gasoline costs, new students may arrive at any time. Public schools MUST serve those students, whether it helps their bottom line or not.
**There is also no guarantee that revenue is going to hold up. While the federal government may simply borrow (tons of) money to fulfill its promises if there’s a shortfall, local governments may not be able to do so (though, again, some do have solid reserves). A business may be able to borrow money to get through a tough spot. Or as FWFIV notes, a business selling retail can adjust almost on the spot to these sorts of issues…..not so easy for a “product” that is an ongoing, 12-month experience.
**Also, regarding the school district cited in the article, it appears that the four-day school-week is part of the budgeting plans for NEXT year. So, in fact, the “customers” — parents, kids, taxpayers — are being told what they are “buying” ahead of time.
By sid on June 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
FWFIV-
True, it has not been proven. Nor has it been proven there will not be a lesser product. Based on my experience with govt., though, I’m gonna bet they have chosen the “easy” solution, rather than the most efficient/difficult. I’m also gonna bet that, knowing they have little accountability (where else are you going to go for the “service”?), they have slightly less regard for providing a quality service, and are more interested in straight number-crunching.
They COULD come up with a number of great solutions to ensure a quality product, including what you suggest, perhaps. But will they? I doubt it. The smart money is on questioning the “solution” when the govt. is involved.
As for the Lowe’s analogy, I didn’t know we were talking about specific time-frames. What I said was there was an agreed price/service, and the theoretical change made by Lowe’s would be unacceptable. Whether or not that took place over a month or twelve months is immaterial. There are plenty of services you can purchase a year in advance, or even longer. Plenty of those services may have fluctuations in cost to the provider. But if you agree to a service at a stated price, and the company you signed on with decides to change the agreement because they did not have the foresight to imagine price changes in that industry, are you going to accept it? I’m not.
Changes in prices are to be expected. But not accepted if you already have an agreement. Saying a business charges more for less now because of changes in the cost of doing business is simple economics. Everyone understands that. Again, the point Mande was making was that the service was established, the cost was established, THEN the service changed. That should not be considered acceptable in the business world (thus, the “flim-flam” statement), nor should we consider it acceptable from our govt.
By sid on June 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
–”But more to the point, while people love to talk about government needing to be run like a business, the fact is that it is not a business.”
That, in no way, means people should stop advocating it be run like a business. Demanding govt. should run more efficiently is what everyone should do. Nothing is accomplished if you just sit back and say, “Oh, well, that’s how govt. operates.”
–”**While budgets may be set well ahead of time, there is no guarantee that costs will remain the same. In addition to things like gasoline costs, new students may arrive at any time. Public schools MUST serve those students, whether it helps their bottom line or not.”
The possibility of enough new students suddenly appearing in a particular district, unexpectedly, is ridiculous. Growth patterns are studied, and taken into account when determining budgets, and there’s a little thing called a census. I know in my area they are sent out every year to every household to determine how many kids will be sent into the system.
–”**There is also no guarantee that revenue is going to hold up. While the federal government may simply borrow (tons of) money to fulfill its promises if there’s a shortfall, local governments may not be able to do so (though, again, some do have solid reserves). A business may be able to borrow money to get through a tough spot. Or as FWFIV notes, a business selling retail can adjust almost on the spot to these sorts of issues…..not so easy for a “product†that is an ongoing, 12-month experience.”
True, but we are talking about a specific case here. Fuel costs were cited, not revenue shortfalls. Stay on topic.
–”**Also, regarding the school district cited in the article, it appears that the four-day school-week is part of the budgeting plans for NEXT year. So, in fact, the “customers†— parents, kids, taxpayers — are being told what they are “buying†ahead of time.”
So, if this is for next year, what happens if the fuel costs come down? What if revenue increases? Do they go back to the five-day schedule, or is the theoretical surplus going to go somewhere else?
Ultimately, it looks like you just want to go after Mande. I’m not sure why, but you did a poor job of it this time. Especially when you say you don’t really know what you’re talking about, but you want to bust her balls (or ovaries) anyway.
By baker on June 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Sid — As I noted, it appears from the article that this shift to a 4-day week is for NEXT year…..so, no, the service wasn’t “established” as something different. The taxpayers, or “customers,” are being told what the plan is. So, it appears that there’s no “flim-flam.”
Even at that, I think FWFIV is correct that the Lowe’s analogy isn’t a particularly good one. With public education, we’re not talking about a retail good….it’s an ongoing service spread across months and months. And, unlike the federal government or most businesses, it isn’t always possible for local government entities to borrow money to get through a down year or refuse new customers if it doesn’t fit their business model. Public schools must take on all-comers, even well after budgets have been approved.
There are ways that we’d all like the government to function more like businesses. But the fact is that they are two different animals, and analogies comparing government to business are often not on target.
As for Mande, it was in post #5 that she explained her position on complaining about cutbacks while advocating tax cuts. It seems that her explanation there was a bit different from her original column, which seemed to suggest tax cuts “on the front end.” Tax cuts “on the front end” would hardly make it easier for a school district to avoid cuts in services.
By baker on June 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Sid — Mande may be a very nice and intelligent person….and she may, indeed, become the next Ann Coulter. I don’t think, however, that I’m giving her an unwarranted hard time. If I am, I apologize.
I really do get very tired of anti-government types coming to such casual negative conclusions about the actions of local governments, in particular school districts. I suppose it seems an easy target, but I think most such arguments are off the mark. There are sleazy public officials, to be sure, and there are poorly run boards. But I do think there are checks and balances in most cases, and if a school board sees that it can meet its budget in a time of very high fuel prices by reconfiguring the school-week, then I don’t think it’s fair to assume the worst. I acknowledged that I don’t know a great deal about the situation, but based on the article linked, I can’t see how Mande is informed enough to know the whole deal, either….yet, she pronounces a range of negative conclusions.
I don’t disagree that it’s fine to ask governments to be more efficient, to be run more like a business. But a healthy society also grasps that there are important, basic distinctions between government services and free market, private business. Striking that balance of understanding is a key, I think, though certainly reasonable people can disagree on precisely where to draw the line.
In any case, I don’t think it’s particularly logical to compare the purchase of a single retail product at Lowe’s to the delivery of a multi-faceted “product” stretched out over the course of months and months. Nonetheless, there are examples, I think, even in private business of the service changing after the bill is paid. For instance, newspapers — after signing up subscribers, I would think — have begun cutting opinion pages on Saturdays. That’s a blatant reduction in the product….based on the concept of cutting costs or maximizing profits or whatever. Maybe you’d call that a corporate “flim flam.” I don’t know.
Is the school district in Minnesota reducing services? Maybe it is. Again, we can’t yet know — me or you or Mande — how it will play out. Maybe test scores will reveal that the four-day week hasn’t been problematic.
Still, I will certainly acknowledge this: If that district up in Minnesota is shortchanging the education of children in order to have more money to waste, in order to meet a budget, or in order to hold the line on taxes, then I think folks should be up in arms.
Well, though I think Mande’s logic is badly flawed in this case, I’ll give her post credit for starting a discussion that I think is pretty interesting.
By Mike Honcho on June 17th, 2008 at 7:09 am
ugh! Baker is such a fat pu$$y. Shut up up with the Mande bashing and logic crap. You are not that smart and no one enjoys reading your comments.
By baker on June 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Well, allrighty.
By Joseph Reynolds on June 17th, 2008 at 8:17 am
The funny thing is…everyone whines about government needing to “cut back”..
here is a way to do so..and not suprisingly…they whine about the fact that government is “cutting back”.. In fact, every time government does try to reduce expenses..this is the kind of response that is genereated. Attacks, criticism, and derision.
tell ya what..come up with a better solution. Go through the budget of that school district, and come up with a list of cutbacks that actually can hold water and stand muster. (remember, just because you dont like something doesnt mean it isnt essential or required)
The reality is, short of getting all the services that they want for no cost to them..they will NEVER be happy, or satisfied, and will always talk about the bogey man outside the walls..”wasteful government spending”.. (conveniently using that bogey man as a wonderful way to raise TONS of money that they can then spend without any oversight or concerns about “wasteful spening”).
Anyone checked out some of the meal tabs lately for these advocacy groups that have scared people into sending them their hard earned money in an effort to fight the Godless, communistic, NEA driven Democraticlly controlled lazy and innefficient government workers?
Their employees dont seem to be to terribly bothered by rising gas prices as they drive denalis, Yukons, and Hummers, now do they..
just something to think about..
By I can't believe this! on June 17th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Moribund economy???? Mandee has no clue…. She obviously has only lived in the bang times of our economy and can not remember downturns…. I would bet she is a part of the younger generation that has her her credit cards nearly maxed to the limit… if she has a savings account …. it would contain a balance of no more than $100 because that was a requirement of her bank….
Mandee may pose to be a conservative and gripe about government spending, but in truth she would love for a socialist society….. She possibly has read books from Karl Marx and thinks he is the greatest…. From her writings…. She wants us to give it all away….
By Mande on June 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am
@ i can’t believe this –
See how the ‘morubind ecomony’ phrase is qualified by the jabs at people’s excessive lifestyles? Also see how I said that people
‘whine about a moribund economy’ while living excessivley?
So as not to overwhelm your neurons, I’ll give you a chance to go back up and read that first paragraph once more.
Ok, you’re back? In that first paragraph, which you so gingerly point to as evidence of my raging Marxism, I’m illuminating the national hypocrisy regarding the economy. You know, people living the high life, yet complaining that there’s a price tag for it? So dear, we actually sort of agree!
By sid on June 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
-”As I noted, it appears from the article that this shift to a 4-day week is for NEXT year…..so, no, the service wasn’t “established†as something different. The taxpayers, or “customers,†are being told what the plan is. So, it appears that there’s no “flim-flam.â€
Not until your third post did you think it important to mention this plan was for next year. Good work on backtracking to try to support your attacks on Mande. Nonetheless, perhaps you can explain a couple of things. First, are the taxes paid this year intended for this year’s budget? Or are they intended for next year? And if this plan is for next year, when we don’t know what will be the cost of fuel, how is this a “solution”? If they discovered they ran over budget because of the cost of fuel, which they did not anticipate, are they anticipating fuel next year will be a specific price? Sounds a little “flim-flammy” to me.
-”Even at that, I think FWFIV is correct that the Lowe’s analogy isn’t a particularly good one.”
Just because you either don’t understand an analogy, or it doesn’t support your opinion, does not mean it is not good. A “service” is a “product,” regardless of how long it is rendered. If you cannot understand that basic business principle, I cannot help you. No, govt. is not EXACTLY the same as a TRUE business. But the analogy still holds. It is painfully obvious to probably everyone that there is a big difference, of course. You rarely can simply drop your govt.-supplied service, stop paying (taxes) for it, and turn elsewhere for the service. And that’s kind of the point of articles such as Mande’s. Expose possible problems with the way govt. operates with the hope of correcting it. Again, if you don’t get that, I cannot help you. Oh, and you can drop your “new customers” red herring. It doesn’t work no matter how many times you want to repeat it. Again, “new customers” is not the issue
-”There are ways that we’d all like the government to function more like businesses. But the fact is that they are two different animals, and analogies comparing government to business are often not on target.”
Uh, yeah, I think your first sentence is pretty obvious. Analogies, however, are not intended to be perfect, apples-to-apples comparisons. In fact, they are defined as showing similarities in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. It’s difficult for two people to effectively communicate when only one actually understands the subtle nuances of the language with which they are “communicating.” (hint: you are not the “one”)
-”As for Mande, it was in post #5 that she explained her position on complaining about cutbacks while advocating tax cuts.”
A semi-valid point, but the Mande-bashing to which I was referring is your “question” in post #3. Again, you clearly enjoy trying to slap her around a little through your post. But you are rather clumsy at it, which I so enjoy pointing out.
By sid on June 17th, 2008 at 11:59 am
-”I really do get very tired of anti-government types coming to such casual negative conclusions about the actions of local governments, in particular school districts.”
Questioning govt. actions is not anti-govt. Anarchists are anti-govt. Everyone else falls under a different heading. Implying someone is anti-govt. because they question certain govt. actions is another red herring. If you can’t beat the message, beat the messenger.
-”Blah, blah, blah. Same tired arguments already made. Look how smart I am, everyone.”
Yes, we all get it. Questioning govt. is OK with you, as long as it is a position you support.
-”In any case, I don’t think it’s particularly logical to compare the purchase of a single retail product at Lowe’s to the delivery of a multi-faceted “product†stretched out over the course of months and months. Nonetheless, there are examples….”
Again, analogies are not intended to be perfect comparisons. But your newspaper example? Let’s see. I can drop my subscription and demand my money back for those papers that I have not yet received. It is done all the time. No “flim-flam” if there is a solution, which there is, so here’s yet another red herring. If the paper refuses, yes, that’s a “flim-flam.” But in my experience, they do not. Again, the point was that you would not stand for such actions with business, but you at least have a way to respond. With govt., you do not. If you want a “better” analogy, how about this? You join a gym, sign a one-year contract, pay your dues, then the gym removes all of its weight-lifting equipment, or shuts down its pool. Would you stand for that? No. You would quit and get your prorated dues back, or negotiate a reduced fee. Again, you have a way to respond to business, but not with govt.
-”Is the school district in Minnesota reducing services? Maybe it is. Again, we can’t yet know — me or you or Mande — how it will play out. Maybe test scores will reveal that the four-day week hasn’t been problematic.”
You can blindly accept the concept that the govt. is more likely to do the right thing in this case. Others choose to question what will happen. There is nothing wrong with raising the questions, though, especially based on what everyone knows to be true: In general, govts. are horribly inefficient at doing what they are supposed to do. But here’s something nobody has asked. What about the single parent with the five-day work week? How will this impact that tax payer? Did the school district take that into account? School is not intended to be used as day-care, of course, but the fact remains that some people simply cannot afford to drop a day of work to stay home and watch the kids. Even worse, some may actually lose their jobs. Won’t that create an added drain on govt. resources? And another thing nobody mentioned. They did this, at least partially, in response to a petition signed by 55 people? How many people pay taxes in that county? If there is a counter-petition that has more people signing it, will they change their mind? Fifty-five seems like a pretty low number to me to be given such influence.
-”Still, I will certainly acknowledge this: If that district up in Minnesota is shortchanging the education of children in order to have more money to waste, in order to meet a budget, or in order to hold the line on taxes, then I think folks should be up in arms.”
Nobody said they are doing this “in order to have more money to waste.” The idea is that they are wasting money and should look to other solutions that do not have the potential for negatively impacting the education of children. And nobody said what was being proposed was “in order to hold the line on taxes.” They did say it was “in order to meet a budget.” The complaint, as I saw it, was to look for other solutions, rather than cut back on school days. Kids in most (if not all) of the other countries that score better than U.S. kids have more school days than ours. Maybe that’s because more days in school=smarter (or, at least, better educated) kids. Maybe not. My feeling is that more days in school probably helps. Again, the bottom line is that govt. tends to be inefficient, and looks for the “easy” solution when met with budget problems.
By baker on June 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
OK, Sid —
My point, and I think this was plenty clear, was to say that WHATEVER THE REASON….if the school board in MN is really compromising the education of children, then, again, I hope people are outraged. And yes….that include reasons related to inefficiency, to keeping taxes down, whatever.
I just took exception to Mande’s conclusion that this was apparent waste. We just don’t know. Maybe I’m overly willing to give a public entity the benefit of the doubt and to trust in the check-and-balance system of a publicly elected board. I stated early on here that did not necessarily advocate the four-day week plan. If it was my decision, I’d probably look for other ways to cut, as well. But I think it’s a cheap shot to make such claim’s about “education taking a backseat…” and so on. It’s too early to draw that conclusion at this point, in my opinon.
And, indeed, I think it’s ironic to talk about what a travesty it is to put money ahead of education while asking for “tax cuts on the front end.”
Of course, maybe these folks in MN really are wasteful and wrong-headed. If so, this is the only school district I’ve heard of going to a four-day week…..if it’s the only one crafting such a plan of neglect and wastefulness out of the thousands of school districts across the country, then maybe local public school systems work better than we’re giving them credit for. Or at least I hope we’re being careful not to paint with a broad brush.
By sid on June 18th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Actually, baker, I got involved when you questioned the flim-flam comment. Your comment indicated you either didn’t understand her comment, or intentionally misapplied its meaning. I also called you out on your silly “pocketing” comment, and your free admission you didn’t understand the whole issue. Basically, my point was that you seemed a little too eager to go after Mande. That, I believe, was your goal, based on the tone of your comments and your tactics. I don’t think you really care about the issue, but were using it for your own personal agenda, whatever that may be. Just my opinion.
As for the issue of the article, if this truly is the only district in the country looking to this solution, they are either ahead of the curve, or grasping at straws. I doubt it is the former, as govt. is rarely the source of truly innovative solutions.
By baker on June 18th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Sid — Mande is a grown woman with a law degree who touts herself as the next Ann Coulter or whatever. I suspect she can take care of herself. Fact is I disagreed with the way she pounced on the school district in MN for the cuts it made in response to rising fuel (and maybe other?) costs. For the umpteenth time, I am not asserting that their response is definitely the right one, but I disagreed with Mande for assuming the worst. I also think it’s logically inconsistent to argue against cutting services while asking for tax cuts “on the front end.” Indeed, I may have misinterpreted her “flim flam” argument initially. But even that, I think, is off-base considering that the school district is talking about next year’s budget (and, again, there’s a difference between faulty policy and outright “flim flam”).
As I said a while back, I suspect we’re at the agreeing to disagree point. In any case, I have questioned the soundness of Mande’s arguments on this and another issue (her factually incorrect piece about DNA research), but I have no “personal agenda.”
By sid on June 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Yes, baker, she can probably take care of herself. As can the MN school district. You saw fit, apparently, to jump to its defense, which is fine. But in the process, you took the opportunity to take a few personal jabs at Mande, implying her work needs closer editing, and that she makes logical errors. But she’s offering an opinion piece, so stick with disagreeing with the opinion and ease off on the personal stuff. Such tactics simply detract from your message, and tend to turn people off. Or, stick with whatever tactics you choose to use, and expect others to return the favor.
Of course, when you freely admit you don’t know that much about the issue at hand, but object to her take on it, you end up sounding like it’s just a personal thing for you. Based on how poorly most govts. address problems, assuming the worst is probably a more sound strategy than giving govt. the benefit of the doubt. That may not be your personal view, of course, but when you post your thoughts, expect differing views to be expressed.
As for logical inconsistency, the concept of tax breaks on the front end has its supporters. The idea is that, the more disposable income available to citizens, the more they might spend. The more they spend, the more tax revenue is generated, thus certain services would not need to be cut. But the real point to consider is not that she wants tax cuts and full funding of services, but tax cuts, full funding of certain services (like educating kids), and cutting other services that may not be necessary or as important.
Did she say that? No, but there’s also only so much one generally says in these little pieces. If you want a detailed account of sound fiscal policies, buy a book on the subject. Just as you find it objectionable that she would assume the worst of govt., some may find it objectionable that you assume her economic theories are flawed when she has yet to offer a fully detailed account of what they might be. I presume there is more to her views than the simplistic “cut taxes but offer full service” theory you attribute to her. If I’m wrong, then perhaps you are correct. But your posts offer little more than selective quotes to support your theory on her being “logically inconsistent.” Sounds personal to me.
By rick on June 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Once again Mande rails against the hypocrisy of the people that don’t like the fact that everything is going up except wages. I have a clue for you, people are reacting, they are tightening their budgets. They’re just vocalizing them more. It’s called anger. And as they get angry and they find they can’t take their crumb crunchers to McD’s for dinner the anger will become more pronounced. Mande, you’re dealing with 2 generations that have known little pain. While earlier generations learned from birth to be frugal, the last pair of generations have learned nothing about the shifting winds of fortune, which is especially dangerous. Don’t look now, these same people are looking for someone to blame other than themselves and will take the first available target. (usually the individual that tells the truth) Both parties are now in the “don’t back down” stage, and it won’t take much to create a backdraft that sweeps all from their pedestal. While I recognize the sarcasm, others didn’t and it shows. Your analogy fails when you deal with governments due to their inability to adjust as a company would. Governments are ridgid in their thinking due to the myriad requirements imposed by electorates that have to babied and can’t stand the truth. Whatever government does is at the behest of the people….as in “their ought to be a law”.
By baker on June 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Sid — I don’t know why you are convinced that questioning one’s professionalism is “personal.” But if that’s how you see it, then you can have it your way.
And you keep going back to my admission that I don’t know a whole ton about the particular case at hand. That’s because it’s all based on ONE article. My point is that based on that ONE short article, probably none of us knows all the details of the matter and, thus, it might be most appropriate refrain from drawing negative conclusions. So I’m not “freely admitting” anything that should disqualify me from disagreeing with Mande or you and whomever. I was simply saying that we’re all looking at a sketchy picture (based on that single short article), so, again, I took objection to what I saw as rather unfounded criticism leveled….I guess it’s back to the benefit of the doubt question.
In any case, we may have different views on how government should work, etc. Others on this thread have stated — more effectively than I have — the ways in which government does and cannot function quite like a business. And I’ve agreed that it’s entirely proper for taxpayers to expect certain businesslike efficiencies and accountability, but that may not capture the entire definition of “good government.” Either way, I hope we can agree that we’re fortunate in this country to have the opportunity to replace public leaders who do a poor job…..I think Rick in post 31 gets at that issue pretty nicely.
By sid on June 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Questioning facts and/or opinions is not “personal,” baker. Questioning her professionalism (which you now indicate is what you are doing) based on two articles sounds kinda personal, to me. The first article, you claim, was factually in error. I don’t know, since I didn’t read it. The second, this one, has a differing opinion than yours. If you think that justifies questioning her professionalism, then we have very different viewpoints. If she had a long record of factual errors and unsupportable opinions, you may have a valid point in questioning her professionalism. But that is not the case, which leads me to believe this is more of a personal thing.
Again, I won’t comment on the first article, but this one has opinions that are supported. You don’t agree with them, but that does not make them “unprofessional.”
As for my point on your admission, well, you seem to be making my argument. You question Mande’s professionalism based on, I presume, her inability to support her opinion. But your contrary opinion cannot be supported if you don’t know anything about the subject. You’re just offering an opinion based on what appears to be your view that you should give govt. the benefit of the doubt. That’s an opinion you have every right to hold, but you don’t support it in any way.
I never said you are disqualified from disagreeing with anyone. I simply disagreed with your view, and pointed to your admitted lack of understanding of the subject being discussed. You claim her criticism was unfounded, yet your criticism was even more unfounded, in my opinion.
As for govt. v. business, both you and rick make the same sort of argument. You both seem to be saying we shouldn’t expect govt. to operate like a business because, well, it doesn’t. But that’s a weak argument. Working to change govt. for the better should be the goal of all citizens. And if that means making it operate more like a business by being more responsive to sudden changes, and running more efficiently, then that is a laudable goal. A daunting task? You bet. Unattainable? Only if you believe it to be.