ALEC, ISTA and Indiana

The teachers unions continue to pound the anti-ALEC drum, this year in the Hoosier State.

The American Legislative Exchange Council is an organization of state legislators, business leaders and other concerned Americans dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism. In the education sphere, ALEC holds that parents should be in charge of their children’s education by allowing them to have choices – charter schools, voucher programs, tax credit scholarships, education savings accounts, etc. – that would “allow each child the opportunity to reach his or her potential.” Furthermore, ALEC believes that workers should not be subjected to forced unionism.

Of course the nation’s teachers unions paint ALEC as a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad organization. In the National Education Association’s pantheon-of-evil, ALEC dwells alongside its most loathed: Rebecca Friedrichs, Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers. In a barrage of anti-ALEC webpages from NEA, we learn, among many other things, that the group favors education privatization so that greedy corporate types can make bundles from little Johnny and Janie, while learning their ABCs. (Just how the schools are somehow supposed to turn into corporate cash cows is not addressed.)

Teacher union activists have come to picket ALEC’s yearly meetings with a self-righteous fervor that makes the true believers glow with pride. Last July in San Diego, Barbara Dawson, a middle school history and English teacher, proudly proclaimed, “They (those attending the ALEC conference) couldn’t have missed it. We were beating drums, yelling and chanting in front of the hotel.”

Yeah, nothing like beating drums and yelling to advance your cause. That’ll learn the capitalist bastards! In a more sober moment, Helen Farias, a local union leader from the Sweetwater Education Association intoned, “The types of legislation ALEC promotes will create a two-tiered educational system, one for the privileged and one for the rest of us.”

Of course, Ms. Farias has it exactly backwards. We already have a two-tiered system, whereby rich people can afford to send their kids to private schools, but due to the Big Government-Big Union duopoly, not-so-rich folks don’t have that option in most places.

Last week, the yearly ALEC meeting was held in Indianapolis, and the unions got a “four-fer.” Not only did the faithful get a chance to express their displeasure with ALEC, they got to do it in a state that has an extensive voucher program as well as tax-credit scholarships. Additionally, Indiana houses EdChoice (formerly known as the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice), the preeminent school choice outfit in the country. But wait, there’s more! The Hoosier State is also home to Republican Party vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence, who is an ardent school choicer.

This year’s union festivities included a twitter storm and a march (braving the heat!) by Indiana State Teachers Association members and sympathizers to the Marriott where the ALEC meeting was being held. The union also issued a special invitation. “While supplies last, we will give two free game tickets (to a minor league baseball game), food vouchers and t-shirts to ISTA members who register early.” The event, held on “Public Education Night” was a tepid affair where partying seemed to be the highest priority. Best of all, Indianans were spared the drum circle at all the protests.

But on a serious note, please keep in mind that while it was the ISTA bosses who bribed their members to come out and protest, the goodies were paid for by union members themselves. Worse, according to David Wolkins, an Indiana legislator, former teacher and public sector co-chair for ALEC, in addition to the swag, ISTA used Craigslist to hire civilians to show up and protest ALEC, paying them $30 a day.

Then there was an opinion piece in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette last week in which Wolkins reminded us of the hideous and criminal mismanagement by ISTA of its members’ insurance fund. As Mike Antonucci reported in December 2013, “The state of Indiana finalized a settlement with the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA) in which the union will pay $14 million to 27 school districts. The settlement arose from an estimated $23 million the ISTA insurance trust owed those districts for misuse of their premiums.”

Also, ISTA has been busy in the Indiana State House this year, where it successfully managed to kill House Bill 1004 which among other things, which would have allowed school districts to pay teachers more money in shortage areas without having to consult the local teachers union.

So as ALEC continues to fight for taxpayers, parents and kids, ISTA – as all teachers unions do – looks to preserve its power and influence…at the expense of taxpayers, parents and kids.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Teachers Union Hits Taxpayers with ‘Money Club’ Again

The California Teachers Association has just dropped $10 million into its campaign to extend the “temporary” income tax hike voters approved when they passed Proposition 30 in 2012. Proposition 55, which will appear on this November’s ballot, would extend the highest income tax rates in all 50 states for another dozen years.

Four years ago, the muscular union, called by many in Sacramento the “Fourth Branch of Government,” spent over $11 million to convince voters to increase sales and income taxes. The campaign, paid for by government employee unions and led by Gov. Jerry Brown, repeatedly promised voters the higher taxes would last only a few years and then go away.

These ultra-high tax rates are scheduled to end in 2018 and union leaders are panicking. If the tax increase ends, there may be less money to fund increases in member pay and benefits.

Spending big money on politics is not unusual for the deep pocketed CTA which receives its funding from mandatory dues. Those dues, withheld from members’ paychecks whether they like it or not, can total more than $1000 a year for a single teacher. Recall that CTA laid out $58 million in opposing several worthy reform measures in a 2005 special election including one reform that would have capped state spending. Union leaders like a guaranteed cash flow so it should come as no surprise if they put out an additional $10 million, or more, to support the Proposition 55 income tax extension. For backers of Proposition 55, spending millions in return for billions of tax dollars is considered a bargain.

The campaign will, no doubt, target low information voters with messages about how, “it’s for the children.” It is standard operational procedure for tax promoters to use children as human shields when advancing a tax increase tied to education. Not to be mentioned is that the union’s interest is solely in increasing pay and benefits, including generous pensions, for members who are already paid more than $20,000 above the national average. And don’t forget that a national education union leader once famously said “when school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of children.”

The California Teachers Association has spent $10 million dollars into extending the Prop. 30 “temporary tax”

 

Some will argue that ultra-high taxes should be maintained because public employees deserve to be well paid. They are. According the Department of Labor, California is the state with the best paid state and local government employees.

Our state is running a multi-billion-dollar surplus, yet Proposition 55 backers want to continue the ultra-high taxes that are already pushing businesses, and the jobs they provide, to relocate out of state. And it’s not just businesses. The list of high wealth individuals including professional athletes and entertainers who have bailed out of California is a mile long.

But the deleterious impact of high taxes is wholly lost on the union bosses. Their attention is, no doubt, on the latest news from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. The second-largest U.S. public pension fund earned a paltry 1.4 percent return on investments in the fiscal year just ended, missing its target of 7.5 percent for the second straight year.  This raises questions about the fund’s management and whether or not it will be able to meet its obligation to 896,000 current and retired teachers.

Of course, taxpayers remain the guarantor of all public employee pensions so, in all fairness, the Proposition 55 income tax extension could come to be called the “pension tax.” And the teachers union is prepared to use its massive “money club” on voters to make sure Proposition 55 passes and the taxpayers’ dollars are there.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Minnesota’s Toxic Twins

Randi Weingarten and Hillary Clinton embrace, as parents sue to modify rigid, anti-child union work rules.

The yearly American Federation of Teachers wingding was a doozie this year. The 100th anniversary of the union and the presence of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton made for an especially noxious four days in Minnesota – a forced union state – last week. (The AFT affair coincided with the Republican Party convention, but no one would have attended that other event, even if they were on different dates.)

AFT president Randi Weingarten’s talk was laden with typical rah-rah union blather, topped with world-class fawning over Clinton. “Hillary understands the most urgent issues confronting our country. Her bold economic plan puts unions front and center….”

Boy, does it ever. If elected, Clinton will put at least teachers unions front and center. In her talk at the love-in, she gushed, “I want to thank you for being one of the essential partners for everything we need to do to move the country in the right direction.” And she then added “When I’m president, you will have a partner in the White House, and you will always have a seat at the table.” (The you in her statement refers to union honchos, not teachers.)

Minnesota governor Mark Dayton also addressed the throng, tossing out well-worn edu-blob rhetoric like, “…many people did not know how poorly the nation funds public education.” But the “we need to spend more” mantra has been blown up countless times, most recently by Minnesota reformer/writer Chris Stewart who pointed out that North High, one of the poorest performing schools in Minneapolis, receives budget allocations that amount to $17,460 per student, while Southwest High, a school ranked among the best in the nation, gets just $7,782 per student.

The party faithful were in heaven as Clinton and Weingarten oozed their utopian happy talk – so much so, in fact, that hundreds of unionistas took to the streets on the second day of the festivities, tying up traffic and annoying thousands of workers trying to get home during rush hour. But the protestors just had to vent about the “violence visited on the community by Big Banks” and promote the Black Lives Matter agenda. (Can’t let a little good rush hour traffic go to waste!)

Missing from the convention agenda, however, was that the prior week a judge heard initial arguments in a lawsuit aimed at dismantling Minnesota’s union-orchestrated tenure and seniority “protections” for public school teachers. The case was filed by Campbell Brown’s Partnership for Educational Justice and Students for Education Reform Minnesota. The plaintiffs in Forslund v. Minnesota are four mothers from Duluth, St. Paul and Minneapolis. Their suit seeks to have state tenure and dismissal laws ruled unconstitutional, charging they violate the state’s guarantee to a “thorough and efficient” education. It takes three years to attain tenure or “permanent status” – essentially a job for life – in the state. Additionally, the litigants claim that the last-in, first-out statute leads to a less qualified teaching profession. According to Chris Stewart, 98 percent of principals reported losing a quality teacher to LIFO.

The case is similar to the Vergara litigation in California which led to the Wright lawsuit in New York. The latter suit, like Minnesota’s, was also brought by Partnership for Educational Justice along with the New York City Parents Union.

The teachers union is also front and center in another battle in Minnesota. The Gopher State faces severe shortages of teachers in special education, math, science and engineering. As such, you might think that Minnesota – as other states have – would ease the rigid, unnecessary and frequently idiotic credentialing requirements one must suffer through to become a public school teacher. (Bill Gates could not teach a class in computer software in a Minnesota public school because he hasn’t taken the required ed school classes.)

But Minnesota’s Board of Teaching isn’t budging. You see, the board was appointed by the governor, a strong supporter (and beneficiary) of the state’s teachers union, Education Minnesota, which has lobbied against any kind of alternative licensing. The board is comprised of union organizers and representatives of the traditional education colleges whose exclusive franchise would be threatened by a change in the requirements. Also, the ed schools’ faculties are represented by the union.

All the while the union bosses are grousing about the motives of the reformers. Weingarten still swipes at Campbell Brown, claiming that she “continues to do the bidding of her monied donors.” But of course this is just a typical union diversionary tactic. In Minnesota – and elsewhere – the unions have almost total say over who enters the profession and who leaves it. As long as this is the case, many children all over the country will continue to receive a substandard education, and if Hillary Clinton winds up in the White House, she will do everything she can to ensure that the very disturbing status quo remains firmly in place.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Unraveling California’s New “Fiscal Paradox”

California taxpayers are getting taken to the cleaners, but most of them are completely in the dark about how and why.

I will pose a quick question:  Does it seem strange that California has recorded record revenue increases, yet we also see a record number of tax increases and bond issuances on the ballot?

In other words, the state’s tax system is collecting massive amounts of revenues, record amounts, yet politicians are still asking for a record number of new tax increases.  For taxpayer advocates, it just doesn’t seem fair and seems very strange at first glance as to how this can even occur.

The truth of the matter is that California’s system of public finance is a complete train wreck and is set up such that no amount of tax revenues collected will ever be enough to satisfy “spending needs.”   The so-called baseline expenditure increases are on autopilot and deficit projections are generated despite record revenue increases, a trend projected in the Governor’s May Revise. 

In May, Governor Brown’s office said that state tax revenues were surging but projected significant future deficits in the near future, particularly in the event that the Prop. 30 tax extensions are not approved by voters.

A closer look at the state’s independent audit reports note that total state tax revenues have increased from $185.2 billion in 2012 to $250 billion in 2015—a $64.8 billion or 35% increase!  Total state, expenditures have increased from $195.6 billion in 2012 to $248.4 billion in 2015—a $52.8 billion or 27% increase. (Note:  Revenue growth is coming in equally as strong for 2016 if not even stronger, such as in the case of property tax revenues)

Prop. 98 education spending alone has jumped from $47 billion in 2011-12 to $72 billion in 2016-17—a 52% increase in education spending in only five years despite very nominal public school enrollment growth.

 

Prop. 98 spending has increased by 52% since 2011, and yet more tax revenue is needed?

 

Despite this huge windfall of roughly $65 billion in annual state revenue increases for 2015, over 2012—state Democrat politicians and the public employee unions are still telling us that we need a massive tax increase, namely Prop. 55, to avoid education budget cuts.

To put it simply, the state budget has received a $65 billion annual windfall since 2012, so why do the tax and spend interests so badly need to extend an $8 billion a year tax increase?

Don’t be fooled.  Prop. 55 and the “need” for additional taxes is a complete sham set up by California’s unaccountable and automated system of budgeting that ramps up state spending regardless of need and past budget windfalls. (Note: Similar trends are seen at the local level)

The primary culprit is Prop. 98 which requires that 55% of new revenues to be allocated to Prop. 98 education programs regardless of need or other priorities.  And then this spending is locked in, meaning that if revenues drop the following year, you effectively run up a deficit to Prop. 98 programs even though they just received a massive windfall in the preceding year or years.

The result is a ratchet effect on state spending, where it can only go up, never down, and any declines must be paid back in full regardless of any accountability mechanisms or other needs.  The only solutions to mitigate the problem would be to either provide Prop. 98 with nothing more than the minimum guarantee each year, or just suspend it every year into perpetuity, assuming an outright repeal cannot be achieved.

The state’s pension problem, particularly at the local level, is another major factor which has dramatically increased the cost of government, led to the crowding out of government services, and helped bolster the false narrative that somehow government needs more money because service levels are declining dramatically.

Much of the tax windfalls were also committed to other ongoing programs such as a doubling in Medi-Cal enrollment, increases in the cost of government from contract negotiations, and unmitigated pubic employee benefit cost increases, particularly retirement and health care.

Perhaps the most unfortunate thing is that over this same period of extraordinary revenue growth the state has failed to both invest infrastructure and curb the state’s addiction to skyrocketing debt which has recently increased to over $400 billion in 2016 for the State of California alone, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

To sum up, despite these record revenue increases the state has failed to reduce deficit spending, invest in infrastructure and still supposedly needs billions of dollars in additional taxes from taxpayers, to add to the state’s record tax take in recent years.

To borrow a phrase from the state’s most prominent left-wing economist Robert Reich, this is “baloney” and every taxpayer needs to know it.

The only solution to this out of control spending is to shut off the faucet.  If the Democrat Legislature is irresponsible and cannot control its spending, we must limit the amount of tax dollars sent to Sacramento to a bare minimum.

With the cost of government at all time highs, and the value provided by government at all time lows, it is simply not cost effective to further build and sustain California’s big government.  Furthermore, the services that government does provide are provided at such high cost and low value, that it is simply not worth it to taxpayers to pay for these services.

The California Governor and Democrat Legislature have led the State of California down a dangerous fiscal path, very similar to what happened under Gov. Gray Davis in the early 2000s, but even worse.  All the revenue windfalls have been spent, debt stands at an all-time high and is increasing, and these are supposedly the good times, based on economic growth.

When the economic correction comes, this Democrat house of cards will collapse, leaving California taxpayers holding the bag.  And then the same Democrat and public employee union interests, the ones who are currently “crying wolf” for more tax revenues, will say we need to raise taxes even higher.

Don’t fall for this new “fiscal paradox”–it’s a complete sham.  Vote no on all new tax increases this fall to send Sacramento and Democrat politicians a message a message that you’re tired of being lied to and want irresponsible politicians to clean up their act.

About the Author: David Kersten is an expert in public policy research and analysis, particularly budget, tax, labor, and fiscal issues. He currently serves as the president of the Kersten Institute for Governance and Public Policy – a moderate non-partisan policy think tank and public policy consulting organization. The institute specializes in providing knowledge, evidence, and training to public agencies, elected officials, policy advocates, organization, and citizens who desire to enact public policy change.

The Teachers Unions Faux Grassroots Organizing

The Hedge Clippers, a union run and organized group, laughably pretends to be grassroots.

The Hedge Clippers, born last year, is an anti-capitalist, left-wing, purportedly grassroots organization whose focus is on exposing “the mechanisms hedge funds and billionaires use to influence government and politics in order to expand their wealth, influence and power.” The group received a mention in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago in a piece that centered around American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, who sicced them on a bunch of hedge fund managers that are involved with education and pension reform that the union finds objectionable. Perhaps #1 on the Hedge Clippers’ enemies list is Daniel Loeb, founder of the $16 billion Third Point fund. Loeb has the temerity of being a financial supporter of the wildly successful Harlem Success Academy charter school franchise, run by Weingarten’s avowed enemy, Eva Moskowitz. Weingarten has also accused Loeb of being involved with a group that is “leading the attack on defined benefit pension funds.”

The very same day the Journal piece appeared, the Los Angeles Times ran an “exposé” claiming that “activists reveal more dark-money donors to campaigns against unions and schools-funding tax.” The article centers around the Hedge Clippers outing donors who they claim made undisclosed contributions in 2012 as part of a “dark-money” scheme to defeat Prop 30, an initiative that raised income taxes on the richest Californians and sales tax on all Californians. The essential point of the article is that the Hedge Clippers have discovered that evil and greedy capitalists contributed money to an out-of-state organization, which circulated funds through a series of other groups and eventually back to California.

But just how does the Hedge Clippers enterprise do business? Is this really a “grassroots” entity, as billed? In “United Front: Teachers Unions Quietly Spend Millions on ‘Grassroots’ Groups The 74’s David Cantor reveals that the “grassroots organization” has been created, funded, and directed by two of the nation’s largest political contributors – you guessed it – the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.  The group is led by a union lobbyist who is based at New York City’s United Federation of Teachers headquarters. Moreover, Cantor points out that the Hedge Clippers’ “crusade against opaque financial dealings also seems at odds with the fact that in the last election only two organizations contributed more than the AFT to 527s – less-regulated groups that, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, can raise unlimited money for or against candidates….”

But wait, there’s more.

Teacher union watchdog Mike Antonucci weighed in on the subject, pointing out that despite the contributions of those “opposing economic justice,” the Prop. 30 campaign was successful. Perhaps the fact that the alleged grassroots folks (mostly public employee unions) outspent the greedy and evil hedge-funders by almost $14 million had something to do with it.

To fully grasp the teachers unions’ “grassroots” activity, check out the following chart, plucked from the California Teachers Association website. (H/T Antonucci.)

CTA - grassroots chart

As you can see, CTA’s (like most teachers unions’) political organizing is top-down, centrally planned, bureaucratic and frequently at odds with its own rank-and-file. The unions are many things, but grassroots? Hardly. They are run more like the Politburo.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

California Pensions Take Above-Average Tax Bite

California pension funds take a bigger share of tax revenue than the national state average, a research website shows. Why the growing costs are outpacing the norm is not completely clear.

A prime suspect for some would be overly generous pensions, particularly what critics say is an “unsustainable” increase for police and firefighters widely adopted to match a big increase given the Highway Patrol by SB 400 in 1999.

The Public Pension Database does not have information on the formulas that determine pension amounts, like the Highway Patrol’s “3 at 50” or three percent of final pay for each year served at age 50.

One problem is the wide range of pension formulas, made even more complex by a recent national wave of cost-cutting reforms. Under a California reform three years ago, most new hires must pay more toward their pensions and work longer and retire at an older age to earn the same pension as workers hired before the reform.

 

Keith Brainard is the Research Director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA)

 

“Trying to compare plan benefits in one state with another state has become complicated,” said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.

Brainard started the database now operated jointly by NASRA and the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and the Center for State and Local Government Excellence.

Several web-based seminars have been held to show how the “big data” can be used by researchers, government officials, media, and others. Trends and patterns can be identified, comparisons made, and the findings displayed in charts.

A chart on the database shows the amount of tax revenue taken by California public pensions was slightly below the national average in 2001. Then from 2003 to 2005 the California pension tax bite climbed well above the national average, maintaining a gap that by 2013 was about a third higher.

In rough terms, the public pension share of California tax revenue in fiscal 2013 was 8 percent by fiscal 2013 compared to a national average of 6 percent.

 

Source: Public Plans Database and Census of Governments.

Source: Public Plans Database and Census of Governments.

 

 

In an interview, Brainard mentioned two factors for the above-average share of tax revenue taken by California pensions. Most California government workers, including teachers and many police and firefighters, do not receive Social Security.

Only 40 percent of state and local government employees in California receive Social Security, according to the database. The Social Security coverage in some other large states: New York 99 percent, Florida 95 percent, and Texas 47 percent.

The cost of using the federal Social Security program to provide part of the retirement benefit (6.2 percent of pay each from the employer and the employee) would not show in data about the share of tax revenue taken by state and local pensions.

Another factor: The period covered by the research begins around 2000 when the three big state pension funds were spending a “surplus” from a stock-market boom not only on increased benefits but on lower employer contributions.

The California Public Employees Retirement System, which covers about half of all non-federal government workers in the state, sponsored the retroactive SB 400 rate increase for all state workers and dropped employer rates to near zero in 1999 and 2000.

Then as the stock market dipped, CalPERS had to begin raising employer rates not only to cover pension increases (AB 616 in 2001 authorized a bargaining menu for local government employees) but also to regain funding lost by the big employer rate cuts.

In addition to CalPERS, the California plans in the database include the California State Teachers Retirement System, the University of California Retirement System, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, and 11 other local systems.

The data covers most of the public pension members in California, but far from all of the pension systems. An annual report from the state controller lists 131 separate California retirement systems, many of them relatively small.

California systems in the database, with two major exceptions, paid their full Annual Required Contribution (ARC) to cover the annual or “normal” cost of pensions earned each year and the large debt from previous years, the “unfunded liability.”

Debt often is created when pension fund investments, expected by big California funds to earn 7.5 percent a year, fall short of the target, which critics contend is overly optimistic. Among other factors that can create debt is longer than expected life spans.

The California State Teachers Retirement System is listed on the database as paying only 50.9 percent of the ARC in 2013. Unlike other systems, CalSTRS could not raise employer rates. Now long-delayed legislation two years ago to pay the full ARC will more than double school rates by 2020, cutting deep into budgets.

CalSTRS spent its small and brief “surplus” around 2000 on several benefit increases and rate cuts. The pension fund was shorted when a quarter of the teacher contribution, 2 percent of pay, was diverted for a decade into a supplemental 401(k)-style individual investment plan for teachers with a guaranteed minimum return.

Three years ago, a Milliman actuarial report said if CalSTRS had kept its 1990 structure without the rate and benefit changes around 2000, pensions would have been 88 percent funded instead of 67 percent. A much smaller rate increase could have closed the funding gap.

The UC Retirement Plan is listed on the database as paying 63.9 percent of the ARC. A large surplus prompted the plan to give employers and employees a remarkable two-decade contribution “holiday.”

Most made no payments to the UC pension fund from 1990 to 2010. The surplus, driven by investment returns and other factors, peaked with a 156 percent funding level in 2000.

As painful rates were set to resume in a time of tight budgets, a UC task force said in 2010 that if normal cost contributions had been made during the two decades, the system would have been 120 percent funded instead of 73 percent.

CalPERS has not calculated how much of its current funding gap results from the pension increases and rate cuts during the surplus years. But a CalPERS chart showed that SB 400 accounted for 18 percent of the state worker employer contribution increase between 1997 and 2014.

Nearly half of the state worker contribution increase, 46 percent, was due to investment gains and losses, demographic and actuarial changes, and higher employee contribution rates. Payroll increases accounted for 31 percent of the change.

Critics say the SB 400 “3 at 50” formula has the most impact in local government, where police and firefighters are a major part of the budget. The big cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, and Oakland) have their own pension systems and are not in CalPERS.

Public pensions have not recovered from huge investment losses during the recession. The Center for Retirement Research reported last monththat the 160 plans in the Public Pension Database were 74 percent funded last year, 72 percent under new accounting rules.

The Center’s report showed that from 2001 to 2015 the CalPERS funding level dropped from 111.9 percent to 74.5 percent. During the same period, the CalSTRS funding level fell from 98 to 67 percent and UC funding plunged from 147.7 to 81.7 percent.

About the Author: Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. He is currently a Publisher for CalPensions.com.

Teachers Union Kills Another Commonsense Reform Bill

Despite the U.S. declaring its independence from Britain in 1776, Californians are still saddled with teacher union redcoats 240 years later.

Teacher tenure is an atrocity. Officially called “permanence,” this union-mandated work rule allows some teachers to stay in the classroom when they should be imprisoned or at least working somewhere else, preferably far away from children.

Just a few recent examples of permanence at work:

This awful perk is, in part, what California’s fabled Vergara lawsuit is about. Though the ultimate fate of the case is still unknown (next stop California Supreme Court), the state legislature has been trying to come up with some fixes to satisfy the reformers and the teachers unions alike. One such effort was a bill introduced by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. As originally written, Assembly Bill 934 would place poorly performing teachers in a program that offers professional support, though if they receive a second low performance review after a year in the program, they could be fired via an expedited process regardless of their experience level. Also, permanence would not always be granted after two years, and seniority would no longer be the single overriding factor in handing out pink slips. Teachers with two or more bad reviews would lose their jobs before newer teachers who have not received poor evaluations.

Ben Austin, policy and advocacy director for Students Matter (the outfit that filed the Vergara case), thought the bill was on the right track but could be even stronger. Reformer Michelle Rhee has noted that while there should be protections in place so that teachers can’t be fired for arbitrary reasons, she doesn’t think we need to reform tenure; she doesn’t see any need for it at all.

But ultimately Austin’s and Rhee’s opinions matter little. Nor do the left-leaning San Francisco Chronicle, the libertarian Orange County Register and other California dailies that supported the bill. Parents, too, are fed up with the inability get rid of rotten apples, but too few in positions of power care about parents. In a 2015 poll, 73 percent of California voters said that teachers should never be given tenure or receive it much too quickly, and believe that performance should matter more than seniority when teachers are laid off. But voters’ opinions are not worthy of consideration. According to another poll from last year, even most educators believe that a teacher should serve in the classroom at least five years before an administrator makes a decision about whether or not to grant tenure. But then, why should teachers’ thoughts be respected?

Actually the only entity that really matters when it comes to tenure, seniority and other teacher work rules is the California Teachers Association, the powerful special interest which regularly bullies its way through the halls of Sacramento to get its way. This case was all too typical. At first, CTA opposed Bonilla’s bill on the basis that it “would make education an incredibly insecure profession.” Then the union went into hysterical mode, using its trademark loopy rhetoric to proclaim, “Corporate millionaires and special interests have mounted an all-out assault on educators by attempting to do away with laws protecting teachers from arbitrary firings, providing transparency in layoff decisions and supporting due process rights.”

And then CTA spun into action. The union arm-twisted Bonilla and ultimately managed to eviscerate the fair-minded, commonsense, hardly-radical, pro-child bill and transformed it into legislative detritus that pretty much keeps the current tenure and seniority laws securely in place. For example, tenure would be achieved after three instead of two years, whereby if a teacher doesn’t regally screw up in roughly 30 months, they essentially have a job for life. And the quality-blind seniority regimen would be virtually untouched. (For a detailed comparison of the original bill and CTA version, Students Matter has put together an easy-to-read chart.)

Claiming that the disemboweled bill was better than the status quo, Bonilla and some in the media thought the union’s version was better than none at all, and that the legislation should move forward. But Austin and other reformers were outraged and felt strongly that the sham bill should be killed. Austin declared, “Watered down and gutted beyond recognition, the new AB 934 preserves the unconstitutional and unjustifiable disparities in students’ access to effective teachers caused by the current laws.”

Austin et al prevailed, and last Wednesday the bill was mercifully euthanized in the state’s Senate Education Committee. Hence, we have no changes to our odious tenure and seniority statutes and CTA’s imperious regime marches on. So as the nation has just celebrated its 240th birthday, the children of California sadly still cannot escape the tyranny of the teachers unions. Fans of King George III, rejoice!

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Teachers Union Chases "Teach for America" Out of San Francisco

It should be an article of faith by now that in California, whatever the teachers union wants, the teachers union gets. It is nonetheless surprising that their reach might extend all the way to a recent decision by the San Francisco Unified School District board to reject fifteen talented teachers who were part of “Teach for America.”

The Teach for America program, similar to the Peace Corps, attracts some of the top college graduates in the United States to spend two years teaching students in underprivileged communities. Not only are these highly motivated and underpaid teachers committing themselves to work in schools with chronic teacher shortages, but they typically teach the subjects for which the profession has the hardest time finding teachers – in science, math, special education, and bilingual classrooms.

Never mind all that. Go away. Never mind that San Francisco Unified needs to fill 500 teaching jobs by August in the midst of a statewide teachers shortage. The union can’t accept “cheap labor” that might undermine their lock on the teaching profession.

If you review the candidate questionnaires filled out by San Francisco Unified’s president, Matt Haney, or its vice president, Shamann Walton, it isn’t too hard to figure out who pulls their strings. Haney’s in-depth answers failed to include teacher accountability as one of his priorities. He also does not support having charter schools as “a central part of our strategy to deliver high quality education.” But Haney does favor project labor agreements and increasing teacher salaries. As for Walton, the questionnaire we could find for her, delivered to the Laborers Local 261, documents her positions on such academic priorities as the right to an abortion, affirmative action, marriage equality, rent control and sanctuary cities. Needless to say, all of her positions on these non academic matters conform to those of the California Teachers Association.

If you review salaries and benefits for San Francisco Unified School District employees, you quickly realize why classroom teachers are arguably underpaid. There isn’t any money left after the bureaucrats get their share. Any ambitious public education professional quickly realizes two things: (1) Do whatever the union tells you to do, and (2) get an administrative job in an office, where you’ll make 50% more, won’t have to teach kids during the day or grade papers at night, and still only work 180 days a year. In the case of San Francisco Unified’s 2014 payroll, you have to scroll through the salary records for 251 bureaucrats before you get to the first employee with the title “Regular Classroom Teacher.” Go figure.

The teachers unions have created pretty much every mess that exists in California’s public schools today. They successfully push for legislation that requires the addition of extensive bureaucratic staff, then bemoan the lack of funds to hire classroom teachers. They complain that classroom teachers are underpaid, but oppose tying compensation to performance. The union blames “Wall Street” for the financial challenges facing pensions, while simultaneously pushing for pension benefits that can only be justified if you believe the corrupt Wall Street debt bubble will never burst. The union accuses charter schools of “privatization for profit,” ignoring the fact that most charters are nonprofits, sustained by donors of diverse ideologies who are united only by a passionate desire to rescue America’s youth from a failed system.

In an editorial published on June 22 entitled “San Francisco was wrong to chase out Teach for America,” even the liberal San Francisco Chronicle was unequivocal. “So who would object to this program?,” they wrote, “Teacher unions, quite vociferously.”

Herein lies the hope for those who still believe that achieving quality education is a nonpartisan concern. Because conscientious people can disagree on issues of abortion, affirmative action, marriage equality, rent control and sanctuary cities, but still vociferously agree that the California Teachers Association is an out-of-control behemoth with a record of placing the interests of bad teachers ahead of the interests of school children.

Someday liberals, along with reticent conservative allies, will join with more outspoken reformers in admitting that nearly every problem in our public schools are merely symptoms, and that the rotten illness at the core is the teachers union. When that day comes, there will be hope for our children, and the future of California.

 *   *   *

Ed Ring is the president of the California Policy Center.

Protecting CA Students From Pension Costs

“The secret to stellar grades and thriving students is teachers,” writes The Economist in a recent editorial. One study cited by the magazine found that “in a single year’s teaching the top 10% of teachers impart three times as much learning to their pupils as the worst 10% do” and another “estimates that if African-American children were taught by the top 25% of teachers, the gap between blacks and whites would close within eight years.” The magazine argues that a rigorous form of pedagogy can “make ordinary teachers great” and that “the biggest gains will come from preparing new teachers better and upgrading the ones already in classrooms.”

But California is radically boosting pension spending instead. Legislation bailing out California’s teacher pension fund requires a doubling of spending on pensions to more than $10 billion per year, leaving that much less for preparing, hiring, paying and upgrading active teachers. $10 billion is nearly three times more than the state spends on California State University or the University of California. Needless to say, California cannot deploy a sufficient number of great teachers for six million students when so much of its education budget is being diverted to pensions.

It didn’t have to be this way. The least expensive time to address underfunded pensions is early, before interest compounds. But state legislators a decade ago bet differently and citizens lost, resulting in the $240 billion* bailout. At this stage protecting students requires three ugly solutions, all of which must be in the mix:

Higher Taxes: Government employee unions have already placed a tax increase initiative on the November ballot. But education’s share of the tax increase is largely consumed by the pension cost increase, producing little benefit for active teachers and other services.

Lower Services: Rising retirement costs have already crowded out public services such as welfare, courts, parks and higher education despite sharply higher state revenues and tax increases. California is already one of ten US states spending more on retirement costs than on higher education. The bailout means more crowd-out, plus Governor Brown has warned of reduced revenues as the stock market cools, implying even less money for higher education and other services. More cuts to services isn’t the answer.

Benefit Cuts: No individual gets rich on a teacher pension in California but the combination of compound interest and hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries produces a huge bailout cost. Retired teachers did not cause the pension problem, but neither did students, welfare recipients, taxpayers and other citizens already paying for rising pension costs, and neither did young and future teachers whose jobs, compensation and training will — in the absence of concessions by retirees — be sacrificed to the pension cost increase. Everyone must chip in to solve this problem. As a start, California should look to legislation in Rhode Island and New Jersey temporarily suspending annual pension increases for current and future retirees until plans are better funded.

 

Source: California Legislative Analyst’s Office

 

The state must not allow past pension promises to devour student futuresOnly the governor and state legislature can fix this problem. Charities cannot make up for $10 billion per year and the federal government is not likely to intervene in a financial issue of California’s own making. To succeed in an increasingly competitive world, California’s public school students require a full roster of great teachers. The governor and legislature must compel retirees to share in the cost.

*N.B.: More pension cost increases will be needed down the road because the teacher pension fund employed unrealistic assumptions when proposing the bailout (i.e., the bailout will cost more than $240 billion) and continues to use unrealistic assumptions when establishing contributions for new pension promises, creating additional unfunded obligations.

About the Author: David Crane is a Lecturer in Public Policy at Stanford University, SIEPR Research Scholar and president of Govern For California. From 2004 – 2010 he served as a special advisor to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and from 1979-2003 he was a partner at Babcock & Brown, a financial services company. Crane also serves as a director of Building America’s Future, California Common Sense and the University of California’s Investment Advisory Group. Formerly he served on the University of California Board of Regents and as a director of the California State Teachers Retirement System, California High Speed Rail Authority, California Economic Development Commission, Djerassi Resident Artists Program, Environmental Defense Fund, Legal Services for Children, Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, Society of Actuaries Blue Ribbon Panel on the Causes of Public Pension Underfunding, and Volcker-Ravitch Task Force on the State Budget Crisis.

The Bad, the Ugly and…the Perky

Three recent stories point to the self-serving teacher union mentality.

The bad. Joseph Ocol was in big trouble when he came to the U.S. in 1999. As a whistleblower, he was placed in the government’s Witness Protection Program for calling attention to an election fund-raising scam in his native Philippines. Even with a double degree in Electrical Engineering and Education, he had difficulty finding work here. Ultimately he found a job as a mathematics teacher in a tough part of Chicago, an area notorious for drugs, crime and violence.

Ocol’s idealism and passion to make things right served him well in his new position. A math teacher, he became famous by creating an after-school chess club. Knowing that most gang violence occurs between 3 and 6pm, he decided to keep as many kids in school as he could and teach them to play chess. He eventually expanded his program from high school students and invited children from the local elementary school to join, ultimately involving over 100 at-risk kids. Over the years, the wildly successful program has produced several chess champions and received accolades from the Cook County Board of Commissioners, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and President Obama.

But then, Ocol did something bad, really bad, at least according to the Chicago Teachers Union. Not willing to abandon his students, he decided to shun the one-day teachers’ strike in the Windy City on April 1st. As punishment for his “crime,” the union is demanding that he give the pay he received for working that day to them. Ocol made a counter offer. He said he was willing to fork over his salary, but wants it to help fund his 35 member chess team’s trip to the White House. Ocol was supposed to have a hearing on June 6th, but he refused to go because he said he needed the time to coach his students.

So in a city that is home to the highest paid teachers in the country – where more than one in three students drop out – CTU is doing its best to hound a dedicated educator and idealistic human being into submission over not participating in what was very possibly an illegal one-day strike. (But of course, CTU president Karen Lewis will reassure us that the union’s punishment of the teacher is being administered “for the children.”)

Ocol also said he has been receiving nasty messages from other union members and filed a complaint. Some teachers have suggested that he leave the Chicago Public School System and work for a charter school. Good idea. I’m sure his efforts would be much more appreciated in a non-union environment. And if he goes that route, here’s hoping all his students will follow him.

The Ugly. In Yonkers, NY, we have a reverse problem where the union, instead of trying to punish a good teacher, tries to help a violent teacher save his own skin. Investigative journalist James O’Keefe went into the local union office posing as a teacher who claimed to have physically abused a student while using a racial epithet, and subsequently fled to Mexico, unannounced, for two weeks, because he didn’t know what else to do. The episode, available via a 17-minute video, lays bare the union’s priorities. The local union president and vice-president instruct the teacher to talk to them “theoretically” and not to admit anything. The union bosses clearly couldn’t have cared less about the abused child, but rather counseled the teacher how to save his job, advising him what lies to tell and what truths to avoid.

When the Yonkers City Council caught wind of the video, it insisted that the involved union officials resign. Majority Leader John Larkin said “What kind of people would conspire to conceal child abuse and assist in covering up a teacher going AWOL for two weeks without permission?” (The answer Mr. Larkin is: Your average teacher union leader.)

The mayor was more than a tad miffed. “If this is the standard operating procedure, well you know what, it better damn well change.”

And then there was the teacher union response. The two involved local union leaders refused to comment on the video. Karl Korn, spokesman for the New York State United Teachers (the state affiliate of the involved local), punted to the national union, saying the American Federation of Teachers “was reviewing the facts in the matter.” The AFT responded that it is “commissioning an independent, full and fair investigation to determine whether the video is accurate….”

Then, showing true union colors, Korn added, “The AFT is prepared to act if a breach of ethics is found. What we do know is that the video is based on a series of lies and deceptions. It was cut and sliced at least 14 times. It’s an attack piece manufactured by a right-wing extremist.”

I’m sure the union’s investigation will be very fair, and objective to a fault.

The Perky. Just last week the Buffalo (NY) School Board voted to take away the no-copay cosmetic surgery rider that has been in the collective bargaining contract for years. The district is strapped for cash, and decided to redirect the millions of dollars a year it spends on face lifts and tummy tucks to its students instead. The nerve! The union, you see, is using the issue as leverage to get a new contract which they haven’t had since 2004. Local teacher union president Phil Rumore said “removing the cosmetic surgery provision without a new contract is a slap in the face to teachers.”

As Education Action Group CEO Kyle Olson pointed out, the district, operating with a $50 million deficit, still managed to spend $5.4 million on plastic surgery in 2013. At the same time, the high school graduation rate for the Buffalo Public Schools was a pathetic 56 percent and one-third of all adults living in Buffalo are illiterate. Hey, but what’s a little illiteracy when you can score hair plugs and boob jobs, all paid for by the taxpayer!

These three stories are infuriating, horrifying and ridiculous, but, sadly, not unique at all. Similar scenarios are played out year after year throughout much of the country. It’s the nature of the teacher unions, whose priorities are their officers and (acquiescent) members, and most definitely not the kids. And let’s not even get started on the enormous burden they, with the help of compliant school boards, heap on taxpayers.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Labor Backed Prop. 30 Extension Represents CA Taxpayer-Funded Bailout

Perhaps the best decision California voters can make at the polls this November is to vote “NO” on the initiative extending the Prop. 30 temporary tax increases that expire in 2018.

Why?  The short answer is that extending the Prop. 30 tax extensions effectively bails out California State Democrat politicians for their inability to take any steps to curb spending and prepare for the expiration of the Prop. 30 tax increases.

On the contrary, the California Democrat Legislature has taken it upon itself to break all the significant promises it made to sell Prop. 30 to voters in 2012, and now most Democrat politicians want voters to approve another 12-year extension to cover huge program expansions and out of control government spending.

Not to mention, the initiative comes with a price tax of nearly $10 billion in increased taxes ($1.5 billion from the ¼ cent sales tax increase, and $6 to $8 billion in income taxes through three new tax brackets).

Governor Jerry Brown (D) has done the right thing so far by refusing to endorse the initiative that would extend the Prop. 30 tax extensions, saying that the tax increases were intended to be “temporary.”  But I have not heard any other Democrat politician come out against the Prop. 30 extensions, far from it, nearly all California State Democrat politicians want the measure to pass, according to inside sources.

In 2012, the whole argument in support of Prop. 30 was based on a “don’t close the Washington monument” strategy by proponents who said that the “temporary” measure was needed to prevent deep budget cuts to schools and public safety.

 

Gov. Jerry Brown openly stated at a Sacramento News Conference, “I said that’s a temporary tax,” when asked if he would push to extend Prop.30.

 

But once the Prop. 30 tax revenues came flooding in California Democrat Legislators have done nothing but spend and expand permanent government programs without regard for the stated “temporary” nature of the tax increases.

A few sets of numbers tell the whole story.  Prop. 98 education spending has jumped from $47.3 billion in 2011-12 to $71.9 billion in 2016-17—a 52% increase in education spending on only five years despite very nominal public school enrollment growth.

In 2011-12, total State of California spending was $129 billion, with $86 billion of that money being General Fund spending.

By 2016-17 total State of California spending had climbed to $173 billion—an increase of 34% since 2011-12—while California General Fund spending increased to $122.1 billion in 2016-17—an increase of 42%, according to the Governor’s proposed May Revise (Note: assumes final 2016-17 budget will spend roughly what the Governor has proposed).

California General Fund reserves have increased from $543 million in 2011-12 to a proposed $6.7 billion in 2016-17 under the Governor’s May Revise.

The Governor’s May Revise attributes the steep spending increases in recent years to a massive expansion of the welfare state, particularly Medi-Cal, and outlines $19.5 billion in increased state spending that has been spent since 2012 to dramatically expand the welfare state.

California State spending has skyrocketed since 2012 by more than 40-50% on education, public safety and other state programs, and now the California Democrat Legislature believes we need to make the tax increase permanent to pay for all the new spending.

Don’t believe this “false narrative,” California has a “spending problem,” not a “revenue problem.”

To recap, in 2011-12 the State Legislature only had $87 billion in General Fund resources available to spend, by 2016-17 that figure had jumped to $125 billion—that’s an increase of $38 billion annually or a 44% increase in money available to spend in just five years.

The Prop. 30 tax extensions only brought in about $8 billion annually—leaving about $30 billion in annual money available in 2016-17, compared to 2011-12, that the California Democrat-controlled Legislature should have managed more responsibly to prepare for the expiration of the Prop. 30 tax increases.

Voting to extend the tax increases only serves to reward California Democrat politicians for “broken promises” and a refusal to properly manage the taxpayer dollars which have flooded into Sacramento since 2012.

About the Author: David Kersten is an expert in public policy research and analysis, particularly budget, tax, labor, and fiscal issues. He currently serves as the president of the Kersten Institute for Governance and Public Policy – a moderate non-partisan policy think tank and public policy consulting organization. The institute specializes in providing knowledge, evidence, and training to public agencies, elected officials, policy advocates, organization, and citizens who desire to enact public policy change.

$6.2 Billion in New Borrowing on June 7th Primary Ballot

They are overshadowed by one of the most tumultuous Presidential primary campaigns in decades, but California’s June 7th primary ballot has local tax and bond proposals in numbers that, in aggregate, ought to be generating vigorous public debate. Next week voters will be asked to approve 46 local bond measures totaling $6.18 billion in new debt, along with 52 local tax proposals. If history is any indication, more than 80% of them will pass.

Tax activists and politicians who brand themselves as “tax fighters” often point to alarming levels of state government debt, along with state taxes that are among the highest in the nation – but when they do, they are calling attention to a surprisingly small fraction of the big picture. Because most of California’s taxes and borrowing are assessed and spent at the local level. A California Policy Center study from 2013 entitled “How Big Are California’s State and Local Governments Combined?,” using 2011 data, calculated direct state government spending at $54.0 billion. The same study calculated total local government spending at $311.1 billion, nearly six times as much. The numbers have changed over the past five years, but the proportions have remained the same.

Total-CA-Budgets_Table-2r5

California government borrowing follows the same pattern, as shown on the next table. Even if you don’t include the unfunded liabilities for pensions and retirement health coverage – amounts vary by several multiples depending on what return-on-investment assumptions are made – as can be seen, five years ago, the total state government bond debt was $132.6 billion, whereas the total local government bond debt was nearly twice as much at $250.3 billion.

Total-CA-Budgets_Table-1r4

School bond debt just keeps piling up at the local level. Because it only requires a 55% majority for approval, compared to two-thirds for most other forms of proposed government borrowing, it is the most likely to appear on the ballot, and the most likely to pass. As a 2015 California Policy Center study entitled “For the Kids – Comprehensive Review of California School Bonds” uncovered, on average, local voters have approved $10 billion in local school bond borrowing every year from 2001 through 2014. Is all of this necessary?

This year is on track to beat the average. Because these bond and tax proposals are usually concentrated on the November ballot, where they are more likely to be approved by general election voters. It is surprising to find $6.2 billion in proposed new borrowing on the ballot this June.

If you want to learn the details regarding the new taxes and bonds being voted on next week, refer to the document prepared every election by CalTax, “2016 Local Elections.” For example, you will see there are three new taxes proposed on marijuana, 20 new parcel tax proposals, 14 sales tax  proposals, one hotel tax proposal, 4 utility tax proposals, 9 “miscellaneous” tax proposals, and one business tax proposal. Nearly all of these taxes are either extensions of “temporary” taxes that would otherwise be set to repeal, or tax increases, or completely new taxes. In only one case, in the Southern California city of Glendale, is a tax proposal on the ballot to repeal an existing utility tax.

The problem with repeals, or no votes of any type, is that the tax proposal just comes up again on the next election cycle. Eventually, almost all of them pass. In November 2014, as reported in the UnionWatch post “Final Results: 81% of Local Bonds Passed, 68% of Local Taxes Passed,” here’s what happened in that election: “Of the 118 local bonds, 96 were passed, and 22 were defeated. Of the 171 local tax proposals, 117 were passed, and 54 were defeated.”

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

There is an alternative to more taxes and more borrowing. To avoid new taxes, revise pension benefits for existing workers so that – just from now on – the retirement benefits accrue at the lower pre-1999 rates, which are financially sustainable without new taxes. Instead of new borrowing, return control of schools to principals and parents, instead of the teachers unions, a simple step that will yield positive educational outcomes that all the new school buildings in the world cannot hope to replicate.

 *   *   *

Ed Ring is the president of the California Policy Center.

CalChamber Opposes “Virtually Permanent” Prop 30 Tax

With the California Chamber of Commerce announcing yesterday that it will oppose the Proposition 30, income tax extension, the question arises if a campaign will come together to match the financial firepower that the teachers, medical professionals and other public employee unions bring to the table in support of the measure.

Officially, the word from the Chamber is that it is opposed to the extension but nothing has been announced about a potential campaign … yet.

Proponents of the 12-year income tax extension filed signatures recently to get the measure on the ballot.

CalChamber noted in the release announcing opposition to the initiative that it did not oppose Proposition 30 in 2012. The measure was supposed to be temporary to deal with a financial crisis.
However, CalChamber declared that the extension would make the tax “virtually permanent, even when the state’s budget is balanced.”

The Chamber’s announcement comes on the heels of word from the California Business Roundtable (CBRT) that the decision to organize a campaign in opposition to the Prop 30 extension will depend on actions taken by the legislature on business issues.

 

Rob Lapsley, President of the California Business Roundtable (CBRT)

Rob Lapsley, President of the California Business Roundtable (CBRT)

 

CBRT president, Rob Lapsley, told the Sacramento Business Journal that the Roundtable will watch if the legislature tackles health care and education reforms along with specific bills of interest to the business community such as the requirement to give employees a seven days notice before changing work shifts.
Lapsley emphasized that the Roundtable’s decision would also rest on how the Prop 30 extension may impact the state’s economic health.

One issue the CalChamber raised in opposition to the extension was the problem of revenue volatility tied to higher income taxes. The Chamber feared significant reduced revenue to the state during future recessions.

Keeping the higher income tax rates for income over $250,000 could also hurt small businesses that pay taxes through the business owners’ income. In a recent BizFed poll in Los Angeles County, a key finding was that “personal income taxes have the most impact on small business (of 100 employees or less).”

Will concern from the business community over the Prop 30 extension effort gel into a campaign to stop the initiative that will be backed by millions of dollars in union support?

About the Author: Joel Fox is Editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee. This article originally appeared in Fox & Hounds and appears here with permission.

CA Democrats are Not Standing Up for "Working Families"

It’s election season, so every California Democrat politician is out there on the campaign trail, precinct walking with their “friends” in labor, and speaking to labor organizations and anyone else who will listen.  They are speaking with one voice–that ” we are proud to stand up for working families.”

This may sound like a great tag line, and is surely based on recommendations by campaign consultants, polling and focus groups, and perhaps most importantly resonates strongly with their organized-labor base, who is primarily responsible for funding all California Democrat campaigns.

But the truth is that California Democrat politicians and the California Democratic Party is the “party of organized labor” not of “working families.”  This distinction may not be all together clear, or even relevant, at first glance to someone not familiar with the inner workings of California politics and campaigns.

Senate Pro Tem Kevin De Leon (D) and Governor Jerry Brown (D) are two of the state’s top Democratic leaders who push “pro-labor” agenda items including raising the state’s minimum wage and expanded paid family leave.

There is a big difference between a “pro-labor agenda,” and a “truly progressive” agenda that seeks to bolster the middle-class and truly lift up “working families,” not just those on welfare.  If you look at everything California Democrats politicians are advocating for, and what they consider to be major policy successes, it becomes painfully clear that California Democrat politicians are primarily out to benefit “organized labor,” which comes at the expense of almost everyone else.  Of course there are some exceptions with the moderate and pro-business Democrats, but here we are primarily talking about the California Democratic leadership and solidly “pro-labor” state Democrat politicians.

By and large, California Democrat state politicians are preoccupied with pursuing a narrow, pro-labor agenda that is focused on providing the greatest amount of public subsidies, wage and benefit enhancements, and welfare benefits to a very narrow class of people–the poor, organized labor, and public employees–which represents their “core constituencies.”  Everyone else suffers as a result, including “working families” who are not on welfare, lower and middle-class families above the poverty line, small business, and big business.  California’s biggest policy problems such as pensions, housing costs, taxes, and lack of infrastructure spending do not even appear to be on Sacramento’s radar.

In other words, the California Democrat “pro-labor agenda” is neglecting the state’s middle-class and the state’s business climate, and making it much harder for the “true working families” who do not collect state welfare checks to prosper.  Moreover, this “pro-labor agenda” conflicts with a “truly progressive agenda,” but most Democrats and progressives have no idea exactly how.  Robert Reich, the state’s most prominent left-leaning economist is right–the system and its policies are “rigged” in California–but not in the way that most people think.

 

CA Democrat Agenda Primarily Involves Spending as Much Taxpayer Dollars as Possible, Not Spending Reform

If you look at the priorities of the California Democratic leadership they talk about being proud to stand up for “working families” and a desire to “alleviate poverty,” and improve education.  Many of their stated goals are noble, but their means of achieving them and the policies they utilize to advance these goals only serve to benefit their “core constituencies” listed above, not the rest of us and California as a whole.

Their primary policy instrument is spending as much taxpayer dollars as possible on government programs, primarily welfare, health care, and education.  But the problem is that they do so almost indiscriminately and do not try to spending taxpayer dollars wiser or more effectively.  California Democrat politicians have all but given up on asking California state agencies to spend tax dollars more effectively, and rarely consider any program changes that would upset the state’s hugely inefficient and unwieldy bureaucracy.

Spending taxpayer dollars on welfare programs helps the poor but not anyone else, and does little to actually lift the poor out of poverty over the long-term–welfare spending begets more welfare spending.  Spending more money on education in itself, does not improve education.  As a Dan Walters Sacramento Bee column reported earlier this year, the state is spending billions of dollars more on education now compared to a few years ago, with little or no noticeable improvement in the actual quality of education.

In short, most California Democrat policy priorities boil down to one simple end–indiscriminately increasing the size, cost and scope of California government as much as possible–to the primary benefit of the poor and state’s public sector unions. Their policy toward government spending and public employee compensation is essentially giving them as much money as is available in the government budget, no questions asked.

What is most telling about the “pro-labor agenda” and perhaps its greatest departure from the public interest and a “truly progressive agenda” is what California Democrat politicians are not doing.  California Democrats and the Democratic leadership have all but given up on trying to solve the biggest problems that ail California, particularly working families, the middle-class and California businesses.  But before we get to that, let’s take a quick look at the recent “crowning achievements” of California Democrat politicians.

 

A Brief Look at the “Crowning Achievements” of CA Democrats

The centerpiece of the “pro-labor” agenda is environmental regulation, and the “crown jewel” is AB 32.  California Democrats love to tout their desire to enact never ending layers of increased “environmental protections” and “environmental regulations.”  Environmental policy is extremely important to California voters and does represent a “truly progressive” policy stance–perhaps the last remaining shred of integrity the California Democratic Party and its candidates have left in support of a “truly progressive” policy agenda.  But even here they are taking environmental regulation too far, to the primary detriment of “working families” and the middle classes, who will bear the brunt of the excessive regulatory burden in increased costs of goods and services that are regulated, particularly energy costs.

AB 32 was a legitimate policy victory for the state and should be celebrated as such.  But how much further should the state take environmental regulation before the rest of the state and the world show at least some willingness to follow.  California is responsible for emitting less than 0.5% of the world’s total carbon emissions, yes less than half of a single a percentage point. So even if California totally eliminated its consumption and production of CO2 emissions, that would represent but a blip in the grand scheme of things worldwide.

We do get benefits from improved air quality and health considerations, particularly around stationary pollution sources.  But California alone cannot save the world from “climate change” even if we totally eliminated CO2 emissions within our borders.  So why are California Democrats in a race to enact the strongest and most costly environmental regulations when there is little indication that the rest of the world and nation will follow anytime soon?  My view is that it is because this represents action on their strongest policy position, however, beyond a certain point, further regulation will only serve to undercut our global competitiveness, while providing marginal benefits to California residents.  “Working families” will be hit the hardest because they pay the greatest portion of their discretionary income in energy costs.

The biggest recent success that California Democratic leaders are pointing to this campaign season is their “victory” in increasing the statewide minimum wage in California from $10 to $15 dollars per hour–a 50% increase.  Economists say that increases in the minimum wage do modestly raise the take home pay of low-wage workers, but in return lead to about a 10% reduction in employment, according recent discussions with economists.  So is this really the great policy victory that it is being billed as by Democratic politicians?  Effectively, trading a very modest increase in wages for those who keep their jobs, while putting other workers out of work.  Touting this increase as genuine social progress may work on the campaign trail, where few people question the results, but the reality is that this was not the great policy victory that it is being billed as.  After all, shouldn’t the end goal be to lift workers out of poverty entirely, not have them making more in their existing minimum wage jobs.

Another recent “success” touted by California Democrats as a victory for “working families” is the expansion of the state’s paid family leave program.  Prior to the expansion, California law already allowed workers to take up to six weeks off from work to bond with anew child or care for sick family members and receive 55% of their wages.  The new measure increases the pay to 60% of wages, starting in 2018, and creates a new classification for low-income workers who make about $20,000 or less annually to receive 70% of their regular pay, according to a Wall Street Journal Report.

The program is funded by worker contributions and estimated to cost about $350 million in 2018, and $587 million annually by 2021, according to a legislative analysis obtained by the Wall Street Journal.  This policy does represent an improvement for primarily low-wage workers but its paid for by higher wage workers.  It is a marginal improvement at best, and will surely be followed up with future legislation to increase length of time allowed and percentages claimed by workers.

As one can see, the recent list of true policy victories for “working families” is pretty short.  And as will be seen is clearly outweighed by all the negative aspects of the “pro-labor agenda,” which is perhaps better defined by the policy solutions that it does not include–namely the state’s most pressing policy problems.  Or put another way, the “pro-labor agenda” comes with a great cost to California, and that cost is a long list of policy problems that are off limits and not subject to negotiation, or even substantive discussion.

 

“Pro-Labor” Politicians Silent on Mounting Pension Problem

CalPERS Board President Rob Feckner has been “under fire” from critics whom believe he does not have the experience nor expertise neccessary to manage the country’s largest public pension fund.pension fund. Feckner is known to have close ties with the state’s labor unions, having held top positions with the California School Employees Association and California Federation of Labor.

The best example of one such issue is the refusal of the California Democratic Party and California Democrat politicians to even acknowledge the magnitude and implications of the state’s pension crisis.  The public position of almost every California Democrat lawmaker is to first not even discuss the “problem,” let alone any solutions.  Yet every financial expert I have talked to, including a consensus of top economists and government professors at Stanford University, say this is the biggest public policy problem in the state.

The pension problem is eating state, and particularly local balance sheets alive, and leaving no additional money to pay for other pressing spending priorities such as infrastructure, roads and education.  Total statewide pension and retiree health care debt is estimated to top $1.3 trillion, according to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR).  Would a “truly progressive” politician allow all government revenues to go to pensions, as opposed to policy programs and priorities that truly benefit California and its citizens?

To further illustrate, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) lost a combined $25 billion in 2015, the deficit between what they said they will earn and what they actually earned.  Both funds are on pace to lose another $25 billion in 2016, potentially more according to early return estimates analyzed by the Bond Buyer.  That’s roughly $50 billion of taxpayer dollars lost in just two years, or almost half of total annual California General Fund spending.  To be clear, this is $50 billion debt that will grow at 7.5% annually and need to be funded by future tax revenues.  This represents a growing expenditure of public dollars that is not available to be spent on truly progressive priorities at both the state and local levels of government.  Perhaps worse, California state and local taxpayers, including “working families,” are on the hook for all loses incurred by both funds.  Why even bother running a 6-month budget process at the Capitol if nobody will so much as lift a finger to stop the state’s pension funds from driving state and local governments off a fiscal cliff?

Of course, these same politicians have likely already come up with some internal justification for not doing anything about this issue, such as “o’well” that is what the unions want, their members apparently know more about what is good for the State of California than every other independent expert who has examined the issue.

 

Treasurer John Chiang has been remarkably silent on the state’s pension issues for the state’s top fiscal statewide elected official. In 2010, while serving as State Controller, Chiang’s CEO sent a letter to the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) opposing the recognition of net pension liabilities on public agency balance sheets. Despite Chiang’s opposition, the GASB accounting changes took effect in 2015, and continue to be applauded for providing much needed transparency of pension debt. Chiang has recently unveiled a “debt watch” database of local debt obligations that excludes pension related debt, despite it being the fastest growing local government debt category.

 

California Democrats Refuse to Address the True Causes of CA Housing Crisis

Another major departure from a “truly progressive” agenda, is the unwillingness of California Democrat politicians to address the California housing crisis.  This was clearly demonstrated last week when California Assembly leaders, including Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, touted a package of $1.3 billion in new government spending that was intended to address the housing crisis–but it all involved new government subsidies and spending on existing programs for California Democrat “core constituencies” that have clearly failed to address the problem to begin with.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon has stated that his top priority as speaker is alleviating poverty in California. As one of his first acts as Speaker, Rendon proposed $1.3 billion in new state spending on low-income housing subsidies and government run housing programs that are intended to address the state's housing crisis.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon has stated that his top priority as speaker is alleviating poverty in California. As one of his first acts as Speaker, Rendon proposed $1.3 billion in new state spending on low-income housing subsidies and government run housing programs that are intended to address the state’s housing crisis.

 

California’s housing crisis holds the greatest potential to further reduce the standard of living of the poor and middle-classes in California–perhaps more than any other policy area except the pension issue.  As has been discussed in a previous column, the state’s housing crisis is market-driven.  It was created over a number of years, decades even, where the state’s heavily regulated and fee-burdened housing market has failed to build new housing units to meet surging demand, particularly in coastal areas, the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

California Democrats are silent on the causes of what is driving the crisis, appear to have no intention of investigating the true causes of the state’s housing problem, and have given no indication that they are willing to consider any policy changes that would actually address the root causes of state’s housing crisis–beyond providing more taxpayer dollars to the poor to pay for “unsustainable” increases in market-based rents.

Government has essentially created the problem, and the private sector is the only force that can generate the 100,000 units that need to be built on an annual basis to build our way out of the problem.  But no California Democrat, or very few, are talking about the need to address onerous government regulation, crushing development fees, and generally about what the building industry needs to “jump start” the California housing market.

 

CA Democrats Don’t Support Enough Infrastructure Spending

Perhaps the only kind of spending a California Democrat politician does not like is infrastructure spending.  This is largely because the state’s public employee unions shun infrastructure spending because the vast majority of these dollars do not end up in their pockets.

Yet infrastructure spending is critical to building and sustaining a thriving economy and business climate.  All business leaders will tell you that infrastructure spending is needed to improve the state’s business climate.  This is why Silicon Valley leaders are backing transportation sales taxes to pay for roads, which business needs to transport goods.  But infrastructure does not stop there, we need state highways, water storage, state parks, schools, universities, waste water plants, and maintenance of existing facilities that state and local governments all but neglect every year.

What most people don’t realize, and even fewer will admit, is that the state’s infrastructure problem is closely related to the state’s pension problem and public employee compensation issues.  Public employee compensation costs  are consuming all new tax dollars and preventing state and local governments from funding infrastructure projects.  And local sales tax measures to increase infrastructure funding hurt “working families,” assuming they can pass with the “albatross” of the pension issue hanging over them.

Governor Jerry Brown’s January budget proposal only allocated $500 million for the most critical infrastructure maintenance costs (less than 0.5% of General Fund spending), noting that the state needs to start funding massive mounting public employee compensation debts.  Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino counties have some of the worst road conditions in the state, but are all hamstrung by unsustainable increases in public employee compensation costs and mounting debt from these same issues.

Infrastructure benefits all Californians.  It truly is a public good.  Apart from support for some school bonds, why doesn’t increased infrastructure spending fit into the “pro-labor” agenda?  Simple, it does not benefit the state’s public employee unions, as much as salary and benefits which consume 80% of state and local government spending.  And these same governments can’t afford to pay for it, given unsustainable spending in these same budget categories.

 

CA Democrats Fail to Address Tax Reform

Tax reform is perhaps the toughest issue of all, but holds the greatest potential to lift up the California working families and the middle-classes.  California Forward released a series of reports on the issue and Controller Betty Yee’s Council is scheduled to release a report on tax reform soon.  But you don’t see many California Democrats, or the Democratic leadership out there discussing the need to tackle tax reform.  One exception is Sen. Hertzberg, who has introduced a major tax reform bill to expand the state’s sales tax to services, but again this expands the state’s most regressive tax and would be passed onto consumers.

California Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans in proposing a series of new tax expenditures and exemptions every year that help a select special interest (i.e. the movie industry), but are paid for by everyone else.

The state’s tax system holds the greatest potential to transfer wealth from the rich to the lower classes–which is perhaps the single greatest defining policy of what I thought it meant to be a “progressive.”  But nearly all Democrats shy away from this issue because it upsets business, and is not seen as fitting into their long-term career path of climbing up the ladder in state and/or local politics.  It’s too tough of an issue to attract the Democratic mainstream, and holds little potential for a short-term political payoff, beyond very narrow proposals that benefit special interests.

What needs to be done on tax reform?  Simple, you broaden the base and lower the rates, as any expert on tax policy will tell you. California has the highest tax rates in the county on the sales tax and the income tax, up to 9.5% for the sales tax and 13.3% for the income tax.  The sales tax is regressive and hits the poor the hardest, particularly working families who don’t collect any state welfare payments.  The income tax also hits the lower and middle-classes the hardest, as well as small business, in terms of proportion of income and they don’t have the same exemptions and deductions afforded to the rich.

By failing to address the state’s unsustainable spending issues, California Democrats are essentially advocating for future tax increases, that will hit working families and the middle-classes the hardest.  They should be working to ease the tax burden on “working families,” not increase it–that would be “truly progressive.”  Local governments are constantly enacting a series of local fees, mitigations and exactions that negatively impact “working families” and the business community.

To be fair, most California Democrats are hoping for the Prop. 30 extensions to pass which raise $7.5 billion annually, primarily from the wealthy and small business (about $5.5 bil.), but this also includes a 1/4 sales tax increase that will hit the poor and working families (about $1.7 bil.).

This is not tax reform, it’s a general tax increase that lets big business off the hook and hits the average taxpayer and small business the hardest (Note: data from The Economist shows that U.S. corporations are generating the lion’s share of business profits, record profits in fact, higher than any other nation, but not necessarily passing them through to workers).  The reason is that many small businesses (S Corps and sole proprietors) pay taxes through the state’s income tax, while corporations pay through the state’s corporation tax which is so littered with special loopholes and exemptions that some experts say it is “voluntary.”

In short, California’s current tax system contains some progressive elements, namely the income tax, but as a whole the state’s tax system is is not “truly progressive.”  It is loophole-ridden and serves to primarily benefit the rich and big corporations who can take advantage of all its loopholes to the detriment of everyone else (i.e. working families, small business) who pays full boat.  It is largely in conformity with the federal tax code which is even worse as is being discussed at length on the national campaign trail.

 

Significant Policy Change is Difficult But Not Impossible

As one can see, the California Legislature has clearly been marginalized to proposing small, almost insignificant solutions, to address big problems.  And as for the biggest policy problem in California, the state’s unsustainable pension system, California politicians are remarkably silent because any discussion of this issue offends their “friends” in labor.  This is completely ridiculous, and unconscionable to any one who understands the facts of this policy issue, which almost certainly includes Gov. Jerry Brown.

A review of major policy changes enacted over the past 40 years beginning with Prop. 13, shows that significant policy change does happen but it requires bold leadership and a willingness to commit to taking on tough issues over the long-haul, according to a study published by the Kersten Institute.  Most major policy changes do not happen overnight, but the important thing is to at least try.

The critical ingredients of policy changes enacted in the California Legislature are strong leadership from both Legislative leaders and the Governor.  Unfortunately the California Democratic leadership is silent on many of the major policy issues facing California. Gov. Jerry Brown has perhaps the greatest capacity to take on the tough issues, but even he has recently shirked from his initial willingness to think and act big on the tough issues.  Gov. Brown has since decided to just follow the lead of the California Legislature on all but a few pet “legacy issues.”

Gov. Brown did make public employee compensation debt issues the major focus of his January State of the Union Address and is likely to drive a hard bargain in the budget process for increased state payments for retiree health care.  But that’s about it.  The Governor has tried to get CalPER’s to accept some reasonable reforms, but they have refused and he has not made a major issue out of it.

Gov. Brown has been mostly focused on his criminal justice initiative and his two “legacy infrastructure projects,” the delta tunnels and high-speed rail.  The sad reality is that the State of California cannot even pay for its most basic infrastructure needs, particularly in the absence of additional pension and retiree health care reform.  Who needs the delta tunnels and high-speed rail if the infrastructure we have is currently falling into disrepair?

The Governor made road spending a key issue last year, in response to requests by California business leaders and the counties, but has not chosen to connect this to the pension problem, which is the real cause of the “roads crisis.”  The Governor can, and should do more to address these major issues.

So what we really have in California politics is a leadership crisis.  A leadership crisis characterized by the unwillingness of California leaders to address the state’s most pressing policy problems in a substantive way.  Discussion of such issues, if even raised at all, is largely confined to a cursory review, and often followed by proposing a narrow or very piecemeal solution, which may not even represent a step in the right direction.  Other major problems such as pension reform, infrastructure, and tax reform are hardly discussed at all, it’s almost as if they are not even on the radar of Sacramento politicians, even though they loom large in almost every other venue in California, particularly with local governments, the business community and the average citizen.

Another problem is that California has become a “one party state” for all practical purposes which prevents many of their policy positions from being challenged in a competitive election.  The state would benefit by returning to a true two party state as reported by a recent Kersten Institute report.

 

It’s Fine to Be “Progressive,” But Please Be “Truly Progressive”

So the next time you hear a California Democrat politician say “I’m proud to stand with organized labor for working families.” Please question what that actually means, and clarify if that is for the “working families” that are paying California’s taxes, or just those who are partially or fully subsidized from state taxpayers because they are a “core Democrat constituency”?

California has a series of major public policy issues that are going unaddressed and undiscussed in the circles of power in California, all of which have huge implications for “working families” and California’s future as a state.

It is time for California Democrat politicians to start standing up for the “public’s interest,” which includes the lower and middle-classes and what is going to help the state as a whole, not just organized labor.  There is a big difference.  It’s fine to be “progressive,” but please be “truly progressive,” not just “pro-labor.”

And next time you hear a California Democrat politician say they are “fighting organized labor” in Sacramento, take my word for it, “organized labor” already has the keys to the kingdom–so there is really no need to fight for them in Sacramento–it’s really just an exercise of preaching to the choir.

About the Author: David Kersten is an expert in public policy research and analysis, particularly budget, tax, labor, and fiscal issues. He currently serves as the president of the Kersten Institute for Governance and Public Policy – a moderate non-partisan policy think tank and public policy consulting organization. The institute specializes in providing knowledge, evidence, and training to public agencies, elected officials, policy advocates, organization, and citizens who desire to enact public policy change

 

Freedom and Liberty = Public Charter Schools

As a follow up to my post of last week (Anti-Choice Teachers Unions Want to Take Control of O.C. Board of Education), former State Senator Gloria Romero has penned another excellent op-ed piece in the O.C. Register. In Celebrating National Charter Schools Week Senator Romero not only noted that this week is a time to celebrate the tremendous success of public charter schools but the continued voracious opposition to public charter schools by unions and the local Boards of Trustees the unions pay to elect.

 

In 2008, Former State Senator Gloria Romero authored and guided to passage the “parent trigger” law, which allows a majority of parents in a failing school the option to petition the local educational agency (LEA) to implement reform in the school.

 

Here is part of her op-ed piece:

“Increasingly, parents understand that charter schools were precisely given the flexibility to be independent of the many constraints under California’s Education codes, allowing them to be more innovative while simultaneously being held accountable for improved student achievement. Several studies confirm that charter school students do better than their traditional school peers. Stanford’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes found that charter schools do a better job teaching low-income students, minority students and English language learners than traditional schools. The Center for Reinventing Public Education and Mathematica Policy Research found that charter school students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college.”

Yet despite public charter school successes unions and school boards fight parent’s desire to start and continue great public charter schools.  No example of this is the fight by the parents of children at Palm Lane Elementary School, a currently traditional public school that has been failing for over a decade.  The District’s response when the parents attempted to use the Parent Trigger law to convert the school to a public charter school? Sue them in court and spend an estimated million taxpayer dollars to stop the parents’ efforts.  In effect spend over a million in taxpayer dollars to keep children in a failing school.  Who are these deniers of parents’ rights to a quality education for their children?  Trustees Jeff Cole, Ryan A. Ruelas, Bob Gardner, David Robert H.R. Heywood and Jackie Filbeck. (Board of Trustees) And lets not forget their enforcer Superintendent Dr. Linda Wagner. (Superintendent) If liberty, freedom, parents’ rights and quality education (not to mention fiscal responsibility) were grades these trustees and the superintendent needed to earn: they would receive an F grade.

And the ongoing battle of the parents of Palm Lane students: the Superior Court judge ruled against the District and in favor of the parents. See Parents and Children Win The Right to State a Public Charter School. District responded with an appeal that is still pending.  Who is among those filing legal briefs in support of the school district to deny parental choice and a quality education for their children?  You guessed it, the California Teachers Association.

I commend Senator Romero’s op-ed to your reading.

About the Author: Craig Alexander is the principal of the Law Offices of Craig P. Alexander and has practiced law for over twenty five years. He represents clients in litigation and non-litigation matters regarding construction defects, insurance coverage, personal injury, property damages, business litigation and general civil litigation matters and professional liability cases. Craig is a graduate of Santa Clara University’s School of Law and he was admitted to the California State Bar in December of 1987. This article originally appeared in OC Political, and is republished here with permission.

Anti-Choice Teachers Unions Want to Take Control of the OC Board of Education

Everyone agrees that education for our children is a critical pathway for those children to grow into adults who are ready to earn a living and become responsible members of our society. Unfortunately labor unions including teachers unions have a different focus – to benefit their union bank accounts with your tax dollars more than the quality and success of students in those schools. Often to balance a school district’s books the union elected Board of Trustees will give raises to District employees and increase class sizes (with layoffs of younger teachers with less seniority). How does this help children in these schools? Not at all. In fact classroom overcrowding and teachers kept due to seniority instead of quality and student progress is detrimental to their education.

Let me pause and say there are many great teachers in the public school system. It is not their actions that are the problem. It is their unions who want to hold onto power who are the problem.

 

Public charter schools offer parents an alternative to the potential detriments found in our current public school system.

 

Many parents choose to send their children to private schools or choose to homeschool their children to assure that they are doing everything they can to provide a quality education for their child. But there is another route parents can take: public charter schools. The success of public charter schools is beyond refutation. The fact is that public charter schools, with the freedom to not unionize their staffs and focus on children’s academic progress rather than just seniority in teacher evaluations, have resulted in long waiting lists for children to gain entrance into good public charter schools. What is the response to this by government employee unions? To block public charter school applications at every turn. First via the Board of Trustees at the local level. Then with a rubber stamp Orange County Board of Education that denied charter school application appeals routinely. That changed two years ago when Linda Lindholm joined Trustees Robert Hammond and Ken Williams to form a pro public charter school majority. Since then charter schools that formerly were routinely denied appeals have had their appeals granted and more charter schools opened to the benefit of children, parents, teachers who work there and ultimately all of us as these children graduate with a quality education.

This June 7th voters in Orange County will have an opportunity to re-elect Trustees Hammond and Williams to keep that pro-charter school majority in place. The teacher unions are running Tustin Councilmember Rebecca Gomez and Irvine School Board member Michael Parham against Hammond and Williams to replace the current majority with a board majority that will bring the OC Board back to the days when charter school application appeals are routinely denied no matter the quality and demand by parents for a viable alternative to sometimes failing public schools their children are enrolled in.

 

Orange County Board of Education Members: Robert Hammond, Linda Lindholms, and Ken Williams

Orange County Board of Education Members: Robert Hammond, Linda Lindholms, and Ken Williams

 

Former State Senator Gloria Romero has an excellent opinion article in the Orange County Register (Teachers unions trying to take back O.C. board). Follow the link to her article where she has set forth how this is a deceptive campaign by the unions to smear Trustee Hammond and Williams to place their handpicked Trustees on the board.

Here is a part of her article:

“The name “Teachers for Local Control” undoubtedly was poll tested and determined to be a resonant mantra with Orange County voters. What backers probably won’t reveal is that Teachers for Local Control is a chameleon group for the Santa Ana Educators Association, a local affiliate of the powerful Sacramento-based California Teachers Association, which has fought virtually every public education reform and law granting parental school choice in California.

In fact, the legal phone number for Teachers for Local Control provided to the California Secretary of State’s Office is the same number as for the Santa Ana teachers union office.

Whoops.”

About the Author: Craig Alexander is the principal of the Law Offices of Craig P. Alexander and has practiced law for over twenty five years. He represents clients in litigation and non-litigation matters regarding construction defects, insurance coverage, personal injury, property damages, business litigation and general civil litigation matters and professional liability cases. Craig is a graduate of Santa Clara University’s School of Law and he was admitted to the California State Bar in December of 1987. This article originally appeared in OC Political, and is republished here with permission.

Vergara Update: Virtues and Villainy

The union and media reactions to the appeals court decision in the Vergara case had me going through a whole can of room deodorizer.

In 2014, the plaintiffs in the Vergara trial claimed that several California education statutes – all of which are on the books at the behest of the teachers unions – cause greater harm to minority and economically disadvantaged populations because their schools “have a disproportionate share of grossly ineffective teachers.” Judge Treu ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on every issue, removing five statutes concerning tenure, seniority and teacher dismissal rules from the state’s constitution, adding, “The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.” Well, it’s now 2016 and last week the Court of Appeals shocked the plaintiffs by overturning the original decision.

Some of the wording in the ruling was quite interesting: “Critically, plaintiffs failed to show that the statutes themselves make any certain group of students more likely to be taught by ineffective teachers than any other group of students.” Also, Justice Roger Boren, wrote in his opinion that it was the court’s job merely to determine whether or not the statutes are constitutional, not whether they’re “a good idea.” As Reason’s Brian Doherty points out, “The core of the new decision, which seems to this non-lawyer (and non teacher, and non student) to be saying that if the crummy policies are as near as we can tell causing equal harm to all California students rather than special harm to an identifiable group, then the Court feels powerless to overturn them.” Or in plainer English, “All kids are hurt by crappy teachers, so get over it.”

The justices are of the mind that much of the problem falls on administrators. While this certainly may be true to some degree, the path for principals to get rid of a rotten apple is currently so onerous and time-consuming that many, understandably, choose to stick with the poor performers and try to place them in positions where they do the least damage. Also, getting rid of bad teachers is very costly. Recently in Los Angeles, it took $3.5 million just to try to get rid of seven tenured teachers who were deemed incompetent and only four of them were actually removed.

Needless to say, much has been written about the successful appeal, but not all the reporting has been accurate. Unsurprisingly, the teachers unions’ responses were ecstatic, and laden with mounds of bunkum.

I will attempt to separate reality from fantasy.

First of all, the case is not over. This is a three-round fight and to be sure the unions were victorious in Round 2, but the plaintiffs won the first round and will appeal to the California Supreme Court which will ultimately decide the winner. (Don’t hold your breath, however; it could take a year before there is a final decision.)

The Los Angeles Times reported, “In a major victory for unions, a California appeals court on Thursday reversed a lower court ruling that had thrown out tenure and other job protections for the state’s public school teachers.” (Emphasis added.)

No, not really. Judge Treu did not say teacher tenure is detrimental per se; rather, he stressed that the probationary period for teachers is too short. California is one of only five states where schools reward teachers with tenure after only two years or less. In 41 states, the probationary term ranges from three to five years and four states don’t allow tenure at all. In any event, the decision was never about “throwing out tenure,” but rather extending the probationary period.

The National Education Association crowed that the verdict was a “major victory for due process.” Again, wrong. It’s not “due process.” In fact it’s not even really “tenure.” What teachers achieve after two years on the job is “permanent status.” Think about it. Other than the SCOTUS Justices, who else in the world has a permanent job? Do you? Of course not, and for good reason. If you do well, you keep your job; if you don’t perform well you lose your job. Why do we have this awful law for people who deal with our most precious commodity – our children?!

Regarding seniority or “last in, first out,” the unions claim that this is the only way to determine layoffs because it is “objective.” Well, it is indeed “objective” and that’s exactly the problem with it. It makes about as much sense as retaining teachers by alphabetical order. So if layoffs are necessary and your surname is Allen, you are in good shape. But if your last name is Zygmond, adios!

California Teachers Association president Eric Heins was jubilant. “I consider this a victory for teachers and a victory for students. What these statutes have done is…bring stability to the system.” Stability, of course, is not in and of itself a bad thing, but when permitting thousands of poorly performing teachers to stay on the job, it stinks for kids.

In praising the decision, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten dredged up every cliché in the book, including this golden oldie, “You can’t fire your way to a teaching force.” Randi, I would urge you to read what Eric Hanushek, an economist who writes extensively about education issues, has to say on the subject. After doing detailed research, he wrote that by getting rid of as few as 5 to 7 percent of bottom performers, not newest hires, and replacing them with just average teachers, education achievement in the U.S. could reach that of Canada and Finland. So yes, Randi, getting rid of bad actors can do wonders for thousands of educationally abused kids.

Coincidentally, the very day that the Vergara appeal decision was announced, a similar lawsuit was filed in Minnesota by Campbell Brown’s Partnership for Educational Justice, which has also filed a parallel suit in New York in 2014. Regarding the litigation, Weingarten huffed, “It’s not surprising that Campbell Brown continues to do the bidding of her monied donors—particularly when the weight of the evidence is so clear that you cannot fire your way or sanction your way or test your way to children’s educational success.” (Here, she manages to slam arch-enemy Brown, rich corporate types and get in her golden oldie in a single sentence.)

It’s worth noting that with all the judicial wrangling, the courts have rightfully not “legislated from the bench.” Regarding the dismissal statutes, the California legislature made a gesture toward sanity by passing Assembly Bill 215 in 2014. That bill makes it somewhat easier for administrators to remove teachers accused of “egregious behavior,” such as sexual abuse. And now we have Assembly Bill 934 written by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. According to the Sacramento Bee, “Under this bill, teachers who are doing poorly would be placed into a program that offers them extra professional support. If they receive another low performance review after a year in the program, they could be fired via an expedited process regardless of their experience level.” Also, permanence would not always be granted after two years and seniority would no longer be the single overriding factor in handing out pink slips. Teachers with two or more bad reviews would lose their jobs before newer teachers who have not received poor evaluations.

While I think Bonilla’s bill doesn’t go far enough, it is a heck of a lot better than what we have now. Of course, CTA disagrees. It opposes the bill because the changes “would make education an incredibly insecure profession.”

And so the beat goes on. As the teachers unions dig in, hundreds of thousands of school kids – poor and otherwise – are victimized by their work rules which have been enshrined into state law. Our only hope is that the State Supreme Court makes these rules “impermanent” and that parent and kid-friendly laws take their place.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Teacher Union Pension Flim-flam

The public employee pension problem isn’t new, but a teacher union leader’s defense of it has sunk to new depths.

According to the Federal Reserve, public employee pensions in aggregate nationally are in serious trouble. Currently totaling $5.8 trillion, they are underfunded by $1.7 trillion. While all these pensions are draining public resources, Don Boyd, director of fiscal studies at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, charges that the teachers’ plans are a disproportionate part of the problem. And in a recent US News & World Report piece, “America’s Bankrupt Schools,” Lauren Camera sounds alarm bells, explaining that “Pension plans could be the culprit behind broke big-city school districts,” and goes on to detail the bleak fiscal situation that now burdens Philadelphia, Baltimore and Chicago.

Teachers’ pensions are funded to some extent by teachers themselves but the bulk of the payment is supplied by the school district (the taxpayer) and the local and state government (the taxpayer). It’s a “defined benefit” set-up whereby the teacher, upon retiring, receives a fixed monthly amount for life…no matter how much he or she has actually contributed to the plan.

While it is true that local and state governments are responsible for the looming disaster, the influential teachers unions have much to say about these policies and are leading the charge to maintain the unsustainable status quo. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents many educators in the most fiscally challenged cities, claims, “People become schoolteachers knowing full well they will not command riches like in the private sector, but when they retire they can take comfort in knowing they have a pension to support them…The real culprit of the school systems’ trouble has been state governments’ support for expanding charter schools, voucher plans and other school choice policies,” which she argues have eaten into the budget for traditional public schools. She adds, “There is a common thread in how the Philadelphia crisis started, what happened in Michigan, and what’s happening in Illinois, where there is abandonment by these Republican governors or legislatures of urban city school districts.”

Where to begin?! In one fell swoop, she plays the “poor teacher” card, blames legislators who try to help kids to escape their failing public schools (which her union rules over) and Republicans. Of course, she omits the fact that every city and some states that are underwater are run by Democrats. As for her first claim, the myth of the underpaid teacher has no basis. Perhaps the most respected study to date, conducted by researchers Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs (in which they account for all variables – including the fact that teachers work on average for 180 days, while private industry workers toil for 240-250 days) found that workers “who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent, while teachers who change to non-teaching jobs see their wages decrease by approximately 3 percent.” And that doesn’t include the very generous “Cadillac” healthcare plans that most teachers have and don’t pay for. So it would seem that teachers do quite well compared to other workers, even before their pensions are accounted for.

Weingarten’s comments about school choice are especially egregious. As explained by the Friedman Foundation’s Martin Lueken, “First, the states Weingarten cites are experiencing the worst pension crises, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois, do not even have strongly funded private school choice programs. Michigan has none, and fewer than 3 percent of the state’s students in Pennsylvania and likely fewer in Illinois are currently using any private school choice program.” He rightfully points out that schools of choice do not siphon public funds. “The truth is that school choice programs can improve the fiscal health of public school districts. Between 1990 and 2011, there were 10 private school choice programs in operation. Those programs saved a total of $1.7 billion. Another fiscal analysis on the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program demonstrated net savings of $37 million in FY 2009 from the program.”

Unmentioned in Weingarten’s misguided explanation was a prior classic. She is on record saying that, “Every dollar paid out in pension benefits puts $2.37 back into the economy.” Here the union leader blithely ignores that the same economic activity would be generated by taxpayer money if it were not diverted to pensions in the first place.

Another outrage that has been rarely acknowledged in the pension discussion is what is euphemistically called release time or, in some circles, “ghost teachers.” It’s a practice that allows public employees to conduct union business during working hours without loss of pay. These activities include negotiating contracts, lobbying, processing grievances, and attending union meetings and even out-of-town conferences. It has cost the state and federal governments billions to date, not including the pension time the “ghosts” rack up doing work for their union. Thankfully, reports about abuses in Michigan, Connecticut, Philadelphia and elsewhere have been brought to light over the past year.

Via legislation or initiative – whatever it takes – public sector employers must be made to set up 401(k) or “defined contribution” retirement plans as exist in the private sector. In this arrangement, the employer, employee or both make contributions on a regular basis, but there is no additional taxpayer involvement. However, until 401(k) plans are implemented – and the unions will fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening – so much of the money that should be spent on education, especially in our most blighted cities, will go into the pockets of not only retired teachers but to various other public employees…ghost and otherwise. And all the while the teachers unions claim that everything they do is for the children. In this case (and in so many others), they are doing it to the children, not to mention the ever-more-beleaguered taxpayers.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Dear South Side Teacher

An open letter to the idealistic teacher in Chicago who may have defied the teachers union by not striking on April 1st.

In a recent newspaper article you said you were “morally and ethically” against the Chicago Teachers Union one-day strike (or “Day of Tantrum,” according to a Chicago Tribune op-ed) last Friday and that loyalty to your students trumps loyalty to the CTU. A like-minded teacher said she’s furious about the whole thing and is concerned about the message this sends to students. “We’re there to teach and set a good example. This sets a horrible example. I think we are being used as pawns to get legislation passed,” she said.

While there are undoubtedly issues that need to be dealt with, you realize that a “job action” is really not the best way to get what you want. If making noise to focus attention on the issues at hand is necessary, that could have been handled at the rally already planned for downtown Chicago late afternoon Friday. Enraging rush hour commuters is bad enough, but using kids as pawns to draw attention to your grievances is really pathetic.

And what did you get for your idealistic stance against the union bosses? They threatened to banish you from CTU!

But is that really a bad thing? Thousands of teachers all over the country don’t join the union at all, or join and then leave, and are none the worse for it. When I quit UTLA here in Los Angeles, my professional life suffered not a whit.

And maybe you know that of the 50 largest school districts in the country, after working five years, Chicago teachers are already the highest paid.

And maybe you feel that the district shouldn’t have to “pick up” seven percent of the nine you are supposed to pay for your own pension.

And maybe you don’t think it’s fair that Chicagoans were recently hit with a massive $700 million tax hike and already face the highest per-capita tax burden of any residents in Illinois’ major cities.

And maybe you’re tired of the silly teacher union mantra that unionization is important so that you can “advocate” for your kids. As a non-union member, I certainly advocated for my kids as much as I did when I was in the union. What decent teacher wouldn’t? In this instance the union is hardly advocating for kids, it is abandoning them.

And maybe you think that laying off 17 teachers to help balance the books isn’t so awful. In actuality it would be a good thing if it were 17 of the poorest performers. But thanks to CTU and other unions, these layoffs are determined by seniority, not teacher quality.

And maybe you have had it with union-style bullying. Despite all their empty talk about the evils of kids bullying other kids, CTU leadership told union delegates to “take attendance” at the picket sites on Friday morning and to “monitor all school entrances.” Hopefully the thuggish threats didn’t deter you.

Maybe you have come to see the forced dues scheme to be nothing more than, as AEI’s Rick Hess suggests, extortion. You are forced to pay over $1,000 a year to an organization that you think not only doesn’t represent you but frequently goes against many of your core beliefs.

And maybe you are annoyed by union leaders’ lies, exaggerations and empty rhetoric. As you know, not only are you forced to pay dues to the Chicago Teachers Union as a condition of employment, your hard-earned dollars also support CTU parent, the American Federation of Teachers. After the Supreme Court failed (only due to Scalia’s death) to decide on the Friedrichs case, the AFT website stated, “This marks a significant defeat for the wealthy special interests who want to hijack our economy, our democracy, and even the United States Supreme Court.” What?! All a decision for the plaintiffs would have done is allow voluntary public employee union participation. The National Education Association is even worse, committing a double whopper in a recent press release. It claims “In Friedrichs Decision, Supreme Court Reaffirms Collective Bargaining.” Ridiculous. First of all, collective bargaining was never an issue in Friedrichs. Moreover, the Court didn’t reaffirm anything. The vote split 4-4, which means that SCOTUS let a lower court opinion stand. But with teachers unions, truthfulness and clarity are only occasional events.

You may want to consider getting a job at a charter school. Few are unionized and none are associated with CTU. One-hundred-thirty charter schools, including 70 high schools, went on with business-as-usual Friday in Chicago. No, CTU doesn’t ignore charters; their focus is on restricting them. As soon as the strike issues are resolved, the union will resume their effort to minimize charter authorizations in the Windy City.

In the newspaper article, you were quoted as saying, “The only thing I’ve gotten out of the union is a pocket calendar.” Consider yourself lucky. In 1975, when I was a union member, I was laid off from my 6th grade teaching position in Harlem. New York City was going through tough fiscal times and, as a new hire, I was one of the first to be let go. I may not have been the greatest teacher in the world, but I was a heck of a lot better than some who were retained. So I lost my job because of the union mandated “last-in, first-out” regimen.

If you are worried that you will lose your voice and your union-supplied liability insurance, fear not. There are other organizations – professional organizations – that can fill those needs. Why not try the Association of American Educators or the Christian Educators Association? You will save money and be a part of a group that truly cares and supports good teachers and kids. And I promise you they will never use threats and coercion against you, should you decide to follow your conscience. And who knows – they might even throw in a pocket calendar.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

20160405-General-Education-Event-Ad

SCOTUS Deadlocks on Public Union Case

Government employees will still be forced to pay coercive union dues after the Supreme Court deadlocked on a California teacher’s lawsuit against her union.

The court released its ruling on Freidrichs v. California Teachers Association, splitting 4-4 along ideological lines. The tie handed a victory to the union since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of unions and public sector entities to mandate union dues as a condition of employment, a precedent established by the high court in Abood v. Detroit (1977).

California elementary school teacher Rebecca Friedrichs challenged the four-decade-old precedent, claiming that paying dues to the California Teachers Association represented coercive political speech since union bargaining centered on taxpayer dollars.

Terry Pell, the president of the public interest law firm Center for Individual Rights, said that the result was expected after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February. He said his legal team is preparing a petition to rehear the case before the court again.

“With the death of Justice Scalia, this outcome was not unexpected,” Pell said in a statement. “We believe this case is too significant to let a split decision stand and we will file a petition for re-hearing with the Supreme Court.”

The vote of Justice Antonin Scalia was originally expected to be in favor of bringing an end to union "collective bargaining" fees.

The vote of Justice Antonin Scalia was originally expected to be in favor of bringing an end to union “collective bargaining” fees.

The union hailed the decision as “victory for teachers.” CTA president Eric Heins dismissed Friedrichs’ claim that dues violated her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly, saying that the entire case was a “political ploy.”

“This decision is a victory for educators and all public employees, but most importantly a victory for the millions of students of California and across the U.S.,” he said in a release. “The Supreme Court rejected a political ploy by the wealthy corporate special interests backing this case to make it harder for working families and the middle class to come together, speak up for each other and get ahead.”

Friedrichs’ attorneys had conceded defeat in lower courts acknowledging that circuit and appeals court judges do not have the authority to overturn precedent established by the Supreme Court. Those concessions allowed the plaintiffs to expedite Friedrichs’ appearance before the high court. Friedrichs’ legal team said that the Roberts Court appeared ready to overturn coercive dues, pointing to its 5-4 decision in Harris v. Quinn, which overturned forced unionism among Illinois home health aides in 2014.

Oral arguments took place in January just one month before Scalia died in his sleep at a Texas ranch. Conservative justices pressed lawyers representing the state of California and the teachers union about whether teachers should be forced to “subsidize” groups that make claims on the public treasury. Union attorneys argued that dismantling Abood would lead to a “free rider” problem since teachers could benefit from collective bargaining without paying for representation.

“The union basically is making these teachers compelled riders for issues on which they strongly disagree,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said. “Agency fees require that employees and teachers who disagree with those positions must nevertheless subsidize the union on those very points.”

Union watchdogs say they will continue to fight coercive dues in court. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has five cases in various federal courts that threaten to overturn Abood. Foundation spokesman Patrick Semmens predicted that the issue will appear before the Supreme Court in the future.

Terry Pell, the President of the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), is expected to petition the court's decision pending the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice

Terry Pell, the President of the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), is expected to petition the court’s decision pending the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice

“An evenly split court always seemed like the most likely outcome after the sudden passing of Justice Scalia,” he said in a release. “Today’s order means Rebecca Friedrichs’ case probably won’t be the one to finally free public servants from being forced to fund the activities of union bosses as just to work for their own government, but the issue is not going away and could return to the High Court soon.”

Judicial activists on both sides of the aisle pointed to the decision as evidence of the importance of filling Scalia’s vacancy.

Heins, the union leader, called on the Senate to give Obama nominee, D.C. Appeals Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing. Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and chief counsel for the conservative non-profit Judicial Crisis Network, said Senate Republicans should “hold the line” on their pledge to block any appointees until the November election because Garland would tilt the balance of the court.

“The Court’s 4-4 decision demonstrates just how much rides on the next justice confirmed to the Supreme Court,” Severino said in a release. “If the Senate confirms Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, it will be creating a new liberal majority that will dominate the court’s decisions for a generation. The Senate should hold the line on letting the people decide what kind of court they want.” (read original article)

About the Author: Bill McMorris is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. He joins the Beacon from the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, where he was managing editor of Old Dominion Watchdog. He was a 2010 Robert Novak Fellow with the Phillips Foundation, where he studied state pension shortfalls. His work has been featured on CNN, Fox News, The Economist, Colbert Report, and numerous print publications and radio stations.

In like a Lyin’

As charter schools continue to succeed, the reformicidal teachers unions ramp up their assault on them.

Month by month, the teachers unions have been increasing their barrage of malevolence toward charter schools, which are nothing more than publicly funded schools of choice that are trying to break away from the rigidity of Big Education/Big Union rules and regulations.

The March charter assault comes to us via a push poll conducted by the teachers unions’ favorite pollsters – GBA Strategies – an outfit regularly used by unions to manufacture results to their liking. The poll was commissioned by In the Public Interest and the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). The former is a project of The Partnership for Working Families (PWF), a card-carrying member of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, whose raison d’être is to bash “one percenters.” Not surprisingly, several of PWF donors are themselves “one percenters,” including George Soros and other globalist/socialists. CPD is radically pro-labor and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten is on its board of directors.

The results of the poll were reported in Politics USA by “rmuse,” a writer who refers to himself as a “Secular Humanist – Columnist – Audio Engineer/Musician Zen-Atheist.” He writes that while it has taken over a decade, “the public is finally sick of the charter industry’s lack of accountability, systemic underperformance, harsh admission policies, and poorly or untrained teachers; all characteristics of the charter school privatization movement.”

Rmuse finishes his embarrassing screed with a despicable and downright kooky flourish. “Sadly, with Koch-ALEC Republicans controlling education funding and pushing privatization through charters, and coupled with an Administration enamored with privatized charter schools, it may be inevitable that the next generation of Americans will be stupider and more religious than the current one. And, despite their demands to rein in the corporate and religious charter school movement, American taxpayers will ultimately pay to under-educate the next generation to enrich corporations, completely destroy public schools, and create tens-of-millions of theocratic Republican voters.”

Shortly after the poll was released, United Teachers of Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl appeared on KQED-FM, a radio station in northern CA, and whined on about how charters don’t play by the rules. While he did not allude to the poll, his diatribe certainly meshed with it. Fortunately, California Charter School Association president Jed Wallace was also on air and managed to correct many of the union leader’s fanciful forays into Wonderland.

The essence of rmuse’s, Caputo-Pearl’s and other haters’ complaints about charters is that they are “unregulated” and “not accountable.” But nothing could be further from the truth.

As the California Charter School Association points out, unlike traditional public schools, charters are academically accountable in a couple of ways. “They are held accountable by their authorizer (usually the local school district) and, most importantly, by the families they serve. When a team of school developers submit their charter petition, they must define their academic goals. In order to be authorized, their goals must be rigorous. In order to stay open, they must meet or exceed those goals.” Additionally charters must abide by various state and federal laws, civil rights statutes, safety rules, standard financial practices, etc.

As former president of the Center for Education Reform Kara Kerwin writes, “… Unlike all other public schools, charters must be proactive in their efforts to stay open. They must set and meet rigorous academic goals, and actually meet or exceed their state’s proficiency standards. Unlike the conventional public schools that intentionally remain under the radar, charter schools operate under intense scrutiny from teachers unions, the media, and lawmakers. In states with strong charter school laws that allow for objective oversight, it is clear that performance-based accountability is working.”

Around the same time as the unions’ March offensive, a report was released that analyzed the achievement gap. As detailed by LA School Report, “The first-of-its-kind Education Equality Index from Education Cities studied data from schools in the 100 largest U.S. cities, and in each identified up to 10 schools with small or nonexistent achievement gaps that serve a student population where the majority are from low-income families.” It found that charters dominated the rankings in many big cities, especially in LA, where nine of the top 10 schools were independent charter schools.

Hardly a surprise. As students struggle in traditional LA schools, students from the same demographic groups are thriving in charter schools. By the time they’ve graduated, students at charter schools are over three times more likely to have completed courses needed for college admission than students at traditional public schools.

Also, Stanford University’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) conducted an analysis of charter schools in LAUSD in 2014 and found that its students gain significantly more learning time than their peers in traditional public schools.

To be clear, not all charters are wonderful. But if a charter authorizing law is written properly and oversight is competent and vigilant, any charter not passing muster will be shut down. And most all, please keep in mind, charters are schools of choice, picked out by parents, unlike the zip-code mandated traditional public schools that are favored by the education establishment.

Today 282 charter schools operate in Los Angeles, serving 150,866 students. The sad news is that there are 41,830 kids still on waiting lists trying to get into one. Nationally, hundreds of thousands of students are wait-listed. And all the union leaders, their push pollsters, rmuse and their fellow travelers really don’t give a damn about them.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

Exclusive Interview with Rebecca Friedrichs

Rebecca Friedrichs, a third-grade teacher in the Savanna School District, which serves portions of northwest Orange County, is the lead plaintiff in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a lawsuit brought by several teachers that challenged the hegemonic power of their union to collect fees from non-union members. The challenge, made on First Amendment grounds, could have a significant impact on the way unions do business.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in January, and a ruling was expected over the summer. But with the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the largest threat to union power in recent memory may have subsided, at least for now.

We sat down with Rebecca Friedrichs to talk about the case and its future.

Rebecca Friedrichs, both a California teacher and integral proponent to challenging the current application of union "collective bargaining."

Rebecca Friedrichs, both a California teacher and integral proponent to challenging the current concept of union “collective bargaining.”

(1) First, what was it like to have your case heard before the Supreme Court?

Having our case heard before the US Supreme Court was such an honor.  Our voices have been silenced by forced unionism for decades, so it was a liberating feeling to listen as the Justices heard our pleas for freedom from coerced union speech.  We were awed by the beauty of the historical artwork within the Court, the respectful nature of the Court proceedings, and by the remarkable support we received from many supporters who rallied on our behalf outside on the steps of the Court.  That day will forever live in my memory as breathtaking blessing from God.

(2) How do you think the oral arguments went?

I feel very good about the oral arguments.  It seemed that the Justices heard our side of the issues, and I’m hopeful and praying that they will rule in favor of our Constitutional First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

(3) Now, a little background, why did you become a teacher?

I wanted to be a teacher from the time I was in sixth grade.  Then I had a seventh grade English teacher who really inspired me, and that solidified my desire to become a teacher so that I could inspire children to love learning too.  I’ve never regretted the decision because working with little children has been very rewarding.  There’s nothing like being part of the excitement when small children discover new and exciting information.  Their enthusiasm is contagious, and it’s my desire to help them to become enthusiastic lifelong learners.

(4) Did you consider the fact that you would have to join the union?

I never even knew about the teachers’ unions until I was a student teacher, which was only six months before I was hired as an elementary school teacher.  Sadly, my lesson about teachers’ unions was the result of an experience I had during student teaching.  I was learning how to teach under a highly qualified and loving master teacher, but next door to us was a teacher who had lost her patience with children, and in my opinion, she was abusive to them.  Every day I would witness her grab the children by the arms, yank them into line, and yell in their little faces.  These children were in first grade; they were only six years old.  I was so disturbed by the abuse that I asked my master teacher what could be done about the situation. At that time, she sat me down and educated me on teachers’ unions.  She explained that tenure made it very difficult for administrators to rid districts of teachers who had become incompetent or even abusive, and she also informed me of the unions’ collective political efforts which were against almost everything I believed.

(5) How involved have you been in the union? What were some of the policies you disagreed with and how did the union respond to your concerns? Were you ostracized or retaliated against?

I was a full union member from around 1998 – 2012.  During that time, I served as a union site representative, and I also served two years as the secretary on our local union executive board, so in all, I served three years as a union leader within my district.  After stepping down as a leader, I remained engaged with the union leadership in an effort to help with extremely low morale in our school district.

I disagreed with many of the policies of our union including tenure, attacks on school choice, and the single-minded focus on raises at the expense of a more well rounded curriculum for the children.

During the downturn in our economy, I was a union board member.  The district alerted us that they would have to lay off several newer teachers because of a lack of funds. The teachers who would lose their jobs were doing an outstanding job, and many of my colleagues were eager to support ideas to save those jobs.  I surveyed a number of teachers on my campus, and they were willing to take a small pay cut in order to save the jobs of their friends, keep class sizes lower, and to stand in solidarity with the community we serve because many of the parents had lost their jobs or taken severe salary cuts.  I brought this idea to our union leadership on several occasions.  Every time I was met with resistance and told that the teachers would never go for it.  When I suggested an anonymous survey so that teachers could share their voices with the leadership, I was again told no.  After pursuing this idea for weeks, a union leader said, “Rebecca, don’t worry about those teachers. The union is going to take care of them. We’re going to offer them a seminar on how to receive unemployment benefits.”  I was shocked.  I told them that those teachers didn’t want to be on unemployment, they wanted to teach, and their students and the community deserved to have them in the classroom.  Every one of those teachers was laid off that year.  All of them left demoralized and feeling they were inferior teachers.  In reality, they were stellar educators, but the union they were forced to give $1000 a year didn’t “represent” them at all.

(6) What made you decide to take action? What was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back?

I decided to take action because I discovered after years of trying to make a difference within the union and within my district that even union leaders are ignored and bullied if they dare to stand against the union status quo.  No matter how many times I tried to reason with my local union on behalf of my colleagues, no one ever took action to support the needs of my colleagues and myself; even though we were paying the bills.  No matter how many times I brought up our collective concerns about the political efforts of our union, the many negative issues surrounding tenure and other union policies that many of us feel harm our students, the voices of my colleagues and I were never heard. On top of that, every education reform I believe in is defeated by the union I’m forced to fund.

Someone had to speak up to alert the American people that their teachers are being mistreated by a private organization we are forced to fund, and that the very organization that claims to “represent” teachers and protect children is actually the money behind defeating common sense education reforms that would be good for our children and teachers.

(7) The case revolves around “agency fees.” What are agency fees? How are they different from dues and why shouldn’t teachers have to pay them?

There is only one way in which teachers can be union members, and that is to pay full collective bargaining fees and the overt political dues that fund union politics (like contributions to candidates and ballot measures).  Full membership dues run around $1,000 a year in California, and I know teachers who pay as much as $1200.  So, teacher payments are called “dues” when teachers pay for collective bargaining and overt union politics.

If teachers want to avoid paying for the overt politics of the union, which have nothing to do with their jobs, they can elect to become “fee payers,” but they lose their membership and all benefits of membership.  So “fees” are all of the dues minus the overt political portion of the dues.

Fee payers pay 100% of the union dues, and at the end of the year, they can send a request to receive a rebate of the funds that were used for the union’s overt politics; the rebate is usually around 30% – 35% of the dues.  If fee payers forget to send their rebate requests during the short window provided for rebates, they do not receive their rebates, but they are still considered “fee payers,” and non members.   The union gets to decide for itself which expenditures are considered “chargeable” to fee payers or “nonchargeable” and overtly political.

Although fee payers, like myself, pay 100% of the collective bargaining fees, we are denied a vote on the collective bargaining agreements that we are forced to teach under, and we are denied the right to serve within union leadership. We lose all benefits of membership including our professional liability insurance and other perks like life insurance which are only available to us through the union.  Because we lose our liability insurance, most fee payers replace that insurance through private organizations like Association of American Educators (AAE) or Christian Educators Association International (CEAI), so we spend our rebates on our liability insurance coverage.

(8) The union says without agency fees, it would create a class of “free riders,” who receive the benefits of union membership without paying for it and leave the union destitute. How do you respond?

First of all, it’s not a free ride if you never asked for the ride in the first place. No one asked me if I wanted to be represented by the union. Second, the unions lobby the legislature for the power to have the right to bargain on behalf of all public sector workers, even if a worker doesn’t want to be a member. So, they are out there actively working for laws that create the “free rider” problem.

The union consistently states that fee payers are “benefitting” from their collective bargaining efforts; however, many of us don’t think the collective bargaining agreements are benefits. In my value system, it’s immoral to place my narrow financial self-interest above the needs of my community, my students and my country. So when my union uses my forced fees to gain more and more for me at the expense of my students, my community and my country, I am offended and forced to take “benefits” that for which I never asked.  I have so many ideas to improve our schools that I’d love to bring to the table, but my union (with my money) stifles my ideas and often promotes ideas and policies that are in direct opposition to what I (as a 28 year classroom teacher) feel would be beneficial to my students and to other students across this country.

The union takes my forced fees, yet they give me no voice and no vote in collective bargaining, and they strip me of liability insurance and membership.  The truth is that I’m a forced rider and the unions have been free riding off of me and teachers like me for almost 40 years.

There are currently 25 states with Right to Work laws, and in those states, teachers have the right to choose whether or not to pay or join those unions.  The unions are not destitute in those states; in fact, they’re doing quite well.  The union’s argument that giving teachers choice would decimate the unions is simply a scare tactic.

(9) How have you been received by other teachers?

There are, of course, some union members who are angry with me; however, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the large number of teachers who have reached out to support me from across the country.  Most teachers who support me do so quietly because they’re too afraid to speak out publicly, but some are gaining the courage to speak out publicly as well.  Isn’t it tragic that so many teachers across the country have been bullied into silence by a union that claims to “represent” their best interests?  It is my sincere hope that people across this country will become acutely aware of the abuse their beloved teachers have been enduring for decades at the hands of unions they’ve been forced to fund, and that those Americans will speak up in defense of teachers everywhere so that the teachers themselves will be able to find the courage to speak out as well.

(10) Why do you think more teachers don’t speak out as you have?

Three words:  They are afraid.

(11) How do you think the passing of Justice Scalia will affect the outcome of the case?

We were very sad to hear about Justice Scalia’s passing. My heart is broken for his family. He was a brilliant man of integrity and faith.  Our country was blessed by his service, and I am so grateful that I had the opportunity to see him in action the day our case was heard.  Although I am personally hoping and praying for a positive decision this term, we don’t know what the outcome of the case will be.  Court observers expect that if a decision is reached without Scalia, it will be a 4-4 tie. That would leave this very important issue unresolved. We think this issue needs to be put to rest once and for all—and we may need a Supreme Court with 9 members to reach a decision, so if necessary, we are going to push for a final decision to be made by the Supreme Court when there are 9 members.  In other words, if we get a tied decision, we will ask for the case to be re-heard when a new Justice is confirmed.

Biden, Bork, García and Weingarten

Positioning themselves as strict Constitutionalists, teacher union leaders cry foul over a precedent that the unions helped create.

In the wake of Antonin Scalia’s untimely passing, two national teacher union leaders are in a self-righteous snit because the Republican-led Senate is remaining firm in its conviction to hold off consideration of a new Supreme Court nominee until President Obama’s successor takes office. National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García pontificated, “… some senators are speaking and acting as if their oaths and the Constitution are only suggestions and not promises that they make – and attest they will keep – to voters. How else can we explain the downright refusal of some Senate Republicans to do their jobs when it comes to filling the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court?”

Not to be outdone, American Federation of Teachers leader Randi Weingarten harrumphed, “As we teach high school government students, the Constitution is crystal clear about what to do when there’s a Supreme Court vacancy: The president of the United States nominates a candidate for the bench, and the Senate provides advice and consent.” She then informs us, “The Constitution does not say the president shall nominate a justice—unless it is the fourth year of his term.”

Weingarten finishes with a flourish, “For the last seven years, Senate Republicans have attempted to block President Obama at every turn, with no regard for the damage they inflicted on American families. Their stubborn refusal to consider a nominee puts politics over responsibility and, in so doing, dishonors our Constitution….”

As the union leaders rant about the Constitution, their knowledge of recent history comes up short. First of all, as genuine Constitutional scholar Ilya Shapiro points out, no Justice has been nominated and confirmed during a presidential-election year since before World War Two. He reminds us that Justice Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, “but (a) he was nominated in the year before and (b) this was President Reagan’s third attempt to fill a vacancy that originated in July 1987.” Shapiro adds that “while some may argue that it’s somehow ‘illegitimate’ or even unconstitutional for the Senate not to provide its ‘advice and consent’ as specified under Article II, Section 2, there’s simply no basis to conclude that this provision constitutes an obligation to act on presidential nominations.”

Additionally, the modern politicization of SCOTUS was not a plot hatched by evil Republicans. In fact, it all began when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to fill a seat vacated by retiring Justice Lewis Powell in 1987. All hell broke loose in the Senate as Bork, a strict Constitutionalist, was viciously excoriated by Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and others. The vilification was a nonstop assault with every liberal group imaginable, including the NEA, piling on. At the yearly NEA convention in 1987, a teacher solemnly claimed that Bork is a “compulsory pregnancy man” and is “too conservative on race, women’s rights and reproductive freedom.” The 8,000 NEA delegates meeting in Los Angeles then voted overwhelmingly to oppose him.

With every liberal group in the country clamoring for Bork’s head, his nomination was defeated with Joe Biden, then head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, leading the way. In fact, when George H.W. Bush was running for reelection in 1992, Biden asserted, “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway — and it is — action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.” (Emphasis added.) There was no union pushback.

In case there was any doubt about the Democrats obeisance to the “Biden Rule,” Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer reaffirmed it in July, 2007, insisting that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, “except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.” (Emphasis added.) Again, the unions were silent.

But now, after 30 years of massive politicization of SCOTUS, courtesy of Democrats with NEA’s blessing, the “Biden Rule” has been invoked by Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell in the wake of Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Court by President Obama, and two teacher union leaders are demanding that we need to depoliticize the process! They were perfectly comfy with the rule, of course, when it worked for them. But now that the other side is invoking it, they want to kill it. (File this in the already bloated “Teacher Union Hypocrisy” folder.)

And why are the unions so interested in getting Obama’s allegedly moderate pick, Merrick Garland, on the Court? Because, as Bill McMorris writes, he has a history of showing deference to federal labor regulators in reviewing unfair labor practice charges against employers. “An analysis conducted by OnLabor found that Garland ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a top federal labor arbiter, in 18 of 22 appeals that appeared before his court. Garland granted the agency leeway in interpreting its regulatory approach and interpretation of its mission.”

And of course a labor-friendly judge is just what the doctor ordered for NEA and AFT. In all likelihood, he’d become the fifth “no” vote in the Friedrichs case, thus leaving the Abood decision in place, forcing teachers and other public employees in half the country to continue to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.

As is quite apparent, the teacher union leaders really don’t give a flip about the Constitution. What they do care about is preserving their inordinate power and their prodigious gravy train. Thankfully, the Republicans are holding tight and have turned a deaf ear to this latest occurrence of union deceitfulness.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

The Hypocrisy of Public Sector Unions

During the industrial age, labor unions played a vital role in protecting the rights of workers. Skeptics may argue that enlightened management played an equally if not greater role, such as when Henry Ford famously raised the wages of his workers so they could afford to buy the cars they made, but few would argue that labor unions were of no benefit. Today, in the private sector, the labor movement still has a vital role to play. There may be vigorous debate regarding how private sector unions should be regulated and what restrictions should be placed on their activity, but again, few people would argue they should not exist.

Public sector unions are a completely different story.

The differences between public and private sector unions are well documented. They operate in monopolistic environments, in organizations that are funded through compulsory taxes. They elect their bosses. They operate the machinery of government and can use that power to intimidate their political opponents.

Despite these fundamental differences in how they operate, public unions benefit from the still common perception that they are indistinguishable from private unions, that they make common cause with all workers, that they are looking out for us. This is hypocrisy on an epic scale.

Hypocrites regarding the welfare of our children

The most obvious example of public sector union hypocrisy is in education, where the teachers unions almost invariably put the interests of the union ahead of the interests of teachers, and put the interests of students last. This was brought to light during the Vergara case, which the California Teachers Association (CTA) claimed was a “meritless lawsuit.” What did the plaintiffs ask for? They wanted to (1) modify hiring policies so excellence rather than seniority would be the criteria for dismissal during layoffs, (2) they wanted to extend the period before granting tenure which in its current form permits less than two years of actual classroom observation, and (3) they wanted to make it easier to dismiss teachers who were incompetents or criminals.

When the Vergara case was argued in court, as can be seen in this mesmerizing video of the attorney for the plaintiffs’ closing arguments, the expert testimony he referred to again and again was from the witnesses called by the defense! When the plaintiffs can rely on the testimony of defense witnesses, the defendants have no case. But in their appeal, the defense attorneys are fighting on. Using your money and mine.

The teachers unions oppose reforms like Vergara, they oppose free speech lawsuits like Friedrichs vs. the CTA, they oppose charter schools, they fight any attempts to invoke the Parent Trigger Law, and they are continually agitating for more taxes “for the children,” when in reality virtually all new tax revenue for education is poured into the insatiable maw of Wall Street to shore up public sector pension funds. No wonder education reform, which inevitably requires fighting the teachers unions, has become an utterly nonpartisan issue.

Hypocrites regarding the management of our economy

Less obvious but more profound are the many examples of public union hypocrisy on the issue of pensions. To wit:

(1)  Public pension systems don’t have to comply with ERISA, which means they are able to use much higher rate-of-return assumptions. Private sector pensions are required to make conservative investments and offer modest but financially sustainable pensions. Public pensions operate under a double standard. They make aggressive investment assumptions in order to reduce required contributions by their members, then hit up taxpayers to cover the difference.

(2)  One of the reasons you haven’t seen the much ballyhooed extension of pension opportunities to all workers in California is because the chances they’ll offer a plan where the fund promises a return of 7.0% per year are ZERO. Once they’re forced to disclose the actual rate-of-return assumptions they’re prepared to offer, and why, the naked hypocrisy of the public sector pension plans using higher rate-of-return assumptions will be revealed in terms everyone can understand.

(3)  When the internet bubble was still inflating back in the late 1990’s, and stock values were soaring, public sector unions didn’t just agitate for, and receive, enhancements to pension benefit formulas. They received benefit enhancements that were applied retroactively. Public pensions are calculated by multiplying the number of years someone worked by a “multiplier,” and that product is then multiplied by their final salary (or average of the last few years salary) to calculate their pension. Retroactive enhancements meant that this multiplier, which was increased by 50% in most cases, was applied to past years worked, increasing pensions for imminent retirees by 50%. Now, with pension funds struggling financially, reformers want to decrease the multiplier, but not retroactively, which would be fair per the example set by the unions, but only for years still to be worked – only prospectively. And even that is off the table according to the unions and their attorneys. This is obscenely hypocritical.

(4)  Take a look at this CTA webpage that supports the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. What the CTA conveniently ignores is that the pension systems they defend are themselves the biggest players on Wall Street. In an era of negative interest rates and global deleveraging, public employee pension funds rampage across the globe, investing over $4.0 trillion in assets with the expectation of earning 7.0% per year. To do this they condone what Elias Isquith, writing for Salon, describes as “shameless financial strip-mining.” These funds benefit from corporate stock buy backs, which is inevitably paid for by workers. They invest with hedge funds and private equity funds, they speculate in real estate – more generally, pension systems with unrealistic rate-of-return expectations require asset bubbles to continue to expand even though that is killing the middle class in the United States. This gives them common cause with the global financial elites who they claim they are protecting us from.

(5)  In America today most workers are required to pay into Social Security, a system that is progressive whereby high income people get less back as a percentage of what they put in, a system that is adjustable whereby benefits can be reduced to ensure solvency, a system that never speculates on the global investment market. You may hate it or love it, but as long as private citizens are required to participate in Social Security, public servants should also be required to participate. That they have negotiated for themselves a far more generous level of retirement security is hypocritical.

The hypocrisy of public sector unions isn’t just deplorable, it’s dangerous. Because public unions have used the unfair advantages that accrue when they operate in the public sector to acquire power that is almost impossible to counter. Large corporations and wealthy individuals are the natural allies of public sector unions, especially at the state and local level, where these unions will rubber-stamp any legislation these elite special interests ask for, in return for support for their wage and benefit demands. Public unions both impel and enable corporatism and financialization. They are inherently authoritarian. They are inherently inclined to support bigger government, no matter what the cost or benefit may be, because that increases their membership and their power. They are a threat to our democratic institutions, our economic health, and our freedom.

And they are monstrous hypocrites.

 *   *   *

Ed Ring is the president of the California Policy Center.