christinebarry.com

By Chetly Zarko on Jul 10, 2007 | Reply

If Nick or “conservatives” (really a misnomer as a label) really did “blame” workers for the problems of Michigan, he went far afield (I don’t know the context of statement, and since I can’t comment on the BFM piece, I’m not going to dig into it).

I’ll agree with you to the point - blaming workers is stupid.

The State’s economic crisis is caused by a number of demographic and historical trends. But someone on this thread said the state’s problems is that it “needs revenue,” not its workers or state workers, and the state must do whatever it takes to expand revenue. That’s the fundamental problem between libertarian and statist philosophies - the belief first, that the state “needs” revenue, and second, that the method of revenue expansion is best through taxation, rather than economic growth.

On the other hand, some worker organizations, just as some corporations on “corporate welfare” skillfully lobby, use political force to acquire an ever-increasing piece of the pie relative to the size of the pie. For example, quite simply, the demographics of society dictate that there are fewer children to educate as a percentage of the population. This means we should be consolidating schools - and we might actually need marginally fewer teachers. Yet the higher education system - subsidized by state dollars and not responsive to the teaching market - cranks out increasing numbers of teachers - young teachers that I know personally in many cases that can’t get jobs in Michigan (and are not mobile enough to leave). The MEA protects and rewards its members primarily through seniority, so not only are fresh ideas marginalized, but it is willing to actively sacrifice young members and at least their interests (by insisting on negotiations that emphasis benefits over long-term salary increases, benefits in favor of schools laying off some teachers or privatizing custodial services, etc.). Their approach is not balanced - sure, there are some positive outcomes from the union in terms of preventing abuse, but if the union leadership (as opposed to workers) doesn’t have a balanced approach, just as if a corporation or public body employer will cause problems with excess, then the system can’t sustain itself.

The causes of our problems are systemic and related to our relative non-competitiveness as a state and relative dependence on manufacturing - raising revenue through taxation will invariably make our business environment even tougher and create a negative cycle requiring more tax-raising and less growth. The service tax was particularly odd since it would disincent businesses right where we need to grow them.

The solution is not to hope for “downsizing” and layoff - although certainly that is occurring and some more will occur, it is to hold on to what we have, and to slowly chip away at expenses until we begin to turn the corner and can grow out of some of the problems.

Imagine a business increasing its’ prices as a response to crisis or competitive pressure. Imagine GM saying - we need to generate revenue at all costs to pay our employees. Let’s double the price of all our cars. That would be corporate suicide - and it would cost everyone their job instead of a few.

Taxes are the price of government. Increasing them comes at a cost. Holding them steady and increasing efficiency is the solution.

Also, government employees are not entitled to government jobs. It’s almost as if there’s an assumption that here that once a government employee exists, s/he must be maintained. Government jobs should exist on an as needed basis only. Do we need the service or function? Is the service or function competitively priced? Etc.