Washington Monument Strategy Alive and Well in Washington [Veronique de Rugy]

President Obama’s recent plea for another $50 billion (here is the letter to congressional leaders) to save the jobs of teachers and firefighters in the states is a great example of the "Washington Monument Syndrome." This refers to the bureaucratic practice of threatening to close down the most popular and vital programs in response to prospective budget cuts; it gets its name from the U.S. Department of the Interior, which always threatens it will have to close the Washington Monument if its budget is cut.

The message, in this case, is that if taxpayers — who are already poorer than they used to be — don’t give the states billions of dollars on top of the billions already received through the stimulus, our favorite state employees will end up in the streets without jobs. The goal is obviously to cause enough public outrage to give cover for lawmakers to pass another job bill — in spite of the obvious failure of the previous ones.

Here are some reasons why Congress shouldn’t agree to spend $50 billion on state budgets.

First, we are supposedly in a federal system (even though I think federalism in the U.S. is, in some important ways, dead). The states need to grow up and stop relying on the federal government to bail them out.

Second, firing teachers in not the only way out of this budget crisis. Teachers could get a salary cut. Besides, I assume teachers have an incentive to accept a salary cut rather than to lose their jobs all together.

Third, states have many assets they can sell: stadiums, parks, bridges, highways, museums, buildings, and more.

Fourth, if teachers and firefighters are such a priority, why start with them? In the same situation, a typical family would start by reducing its spending in the least essential areas: For instance, parents would stop going out to dinner rather stop buying food for their children. Is President Obama telling us that states have already cut all the non-essential parts of the budget and only essential parts are left untouched? Or is Obama saying that state governments are like bad parents that would rather stop feeding their kids than stop going out for dinner?

Finally, teachers were the big winners of the stimulus bill. According to Recovery.gov data, in the last two quarters, two-thirds of the job created or saved were in the Department of Education (see chart below). How much more help do they need?



More here: http://biggovernment.com/vderugy/2010/03/10/who-is-the-stimulus-money-stimulating-teachers/

You know, I used to think Teachers were underpaid. Now I just think the vast majority of teachers are teachers because they're too stupid to breathe without external input.

You know, I used to think Teachers were underpaid.

I'm honestly surprised you ever thought that.

Oakland's police chief is making some dire claims about what his force will and will not respond to if layoffs go as planned.

Chief Anthony Batts listed exactly 44 situations that his officers will no longer respond to and they include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism. He says if you live and Oakland and one of the above happens to you, you need to let police know on-line.

Some 80 officers were to be let go at midnight last night if a last-minute deal was not reached. That's about ten percent of the work force.

"I came her e to build an organization, not downsize one," said Batts, who was given the top job in October.

That deadline has been extended to 5 p.m. Tuesday.

Here's a partial list:

* burglary
* theft
* embezzlement
* grand theft
* grand theft:dog
* identity theft
* false information to peace officer
* required to register as sex or arson offender
* dump waste or offensive matter
* discard appliance with lock
* loud music
* possess forged notes
* pass fictitious check
* obtain money by false voucher
* fraudulent use of access cards
* stolen license plate
* embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
* extortion
* attempted extortion
* false personification of other
* injure telephone/ power line
* interfere with power line
* unauthorized cable tv connection
* vandalism
* administer/expose poison to another'

* burglary
* theft

Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, but if they don't have the money/manpower to respond to all crimes, then isn't it logical to pick some not to respond to?

Yeah, but you certainly don't publicize which ones you aren't going to respond to. The DA in Contra Costa County (the county right next to Oakland), when faced with staffing cuts did the same thin as the Chief in Oakland. The difference is that he was successful, and his staff didn't get cut. I'm sure the Chief saw that the neighboring DA, who published a list of crimes his office wasn't going to prosecute, successfully stave off staff cuts with that tactic, and attempted to perform the same feat - his bluff was called.