Detailed Abstractions

Over @ The Economist, they have recently begun a new debate in which two primary debaters are taking pro and con positions for the premise (here):

This house believes that governments should play a stronger role in guiding food and nutrition choices.

Which is certainly a question fraught with with many intertwined issues dealing with not only personal individual responsibility, but also questions about governmental responsibility in these areas as well as government-provided health care benefits.

Kelly Brownell is Professor in the Department of Psychology at Yale University, arguing for the pro side of the premise, discusses each of these areas, though ends up asserting problems which aren’t there and using faulty assumptions to do so.  In his opening remarks, he starts by identifying “problems” which he believes supports the premise  (here):

Problem 1: Imagine the day when obesity rivals hunger as the world’s chief nutrition concern. That day has arrived….Approximately 1 billion people worldwide are overweight or obese.  Human biology was simply not designed to cope with an environment that promotes a diet high in sugar, fat, calories and salt….

Mr. Brownell notes with alarm that not only do we have 1 billion obese people, but also 1 billion hungry people:

Problem 2: Another 1 billion people are hungry….

Which oddly enough, he contributes this issue to the correct cause:

…But problems such as war, political oppression, genocide and global warming create great numbers of refugees, populations cut off from food and vast numbers of people who cannot feed themselves. There is now enough food to feed the world, but political and economic barriers prevent its distribution….

I say oddly enough here, because in the countries with lots of political and economic barriers to all kinds of industries, they have a problem with feeding people enough to survive.   Therefore, creating new regulations to make food production & distribution more costly seems a bad idea, but he continues:

Problem 3: Modern food production has grave environmental impact.

Which even if completely true, is completely irrelevant.   This “problem” is not a problem that is specific to the food industry, but to all energy intensive industries and therefore has nothing to do with potentially adding government control only to the food industry.

For scorekeepers – so far, Mr. Brownell has defined three problems, two which have contradictory solutions, and one irrelevant to the question at hand.  Like all those resting on beliefs however, he uses these as a jumping off point and goes forward to discuss “responsibility”:

Ascribing responsibility
These problems are conceptualised in two primary ways.  One is to focus on individual misbehaviour as the cause and increased personal responsibility as the solution. The second emphasises the social, political and economic drivers of the problem and underscores public policies that make healthy behaviour a more likely default….

Which reworded reads, it’s either the individual’s responsibility for purchasing the food they purchase and eating it, or it’s a societal problem which requires government intervention.

To prove personal responsibility isn’t the way to go, Mr. Brownell explains:

…The personal irresponsibility approach is wrong, and is contradicted by a wealth of scientific evidence. Obesity rates around the world have been rising each year, suggesting a worldwide decline in responsibility. Precisely the opposite is true. Data show people behaving more responsibly in many areas of health….

Which certainly seems like an argument, but in reality is not.  He infers that obesity isn’t due to declining responsibility, since studies show an increased responsibility in other areas of health concerns, but the information he gives us does not support his assertion.

It’s completely possible for instance to have an individual say, start working out, thereby being more responsible for their health, but at the same time being ok with their known choice of bad food.  Another individual might quit smoking, but still eat fast food every day for lunch… & knowingly do  so.

His assertion includes an  assumption that there is a one-size fits all answer.  As if certain foods shouldn’t be allowed in certain portions or that by doing so, the company selling the value priced food is some how responsible for the end users’ gluttony.

Quick score check – our esteemed professor has given us three problems, only one of which discusses the actual problem, uses faulty assumptions to gloss over personal responsibility, then moves into what I believe the true crux of his problem is:

Changing defaults to correct market failures
It is generally agreed that government intervention is justified when market failures cause sub-optimal production and consumption patterns.

& here we are, with assumptions galore.

First, he’s assuming it’s a market failure.  For those humans still on the planet going hungry, I think hearing about cheap high caloric food would be seen as a feature of rich countries, not a bug.

Second, even if it’s generally agreed that government intervention is justified, that doesn’t mean that it should be.  Appeals to the majority doesn’t invalidate a premise, but it certainly isn’t proof.  Majorities throughout history have generally agreed to all kinds of things, like slavery or the world being flat.

Third, even if I agree with the first two assumptions, there is yet one more there – the idea that even if someone can identify this as a market failure and we assume that government intervention is justified, we should then only seek government intervention if we believe that centralized control would ultimately return better results than the current market process.

I think a brief reading of controlled societies throughout history would let Mr. Brownell see the folly that is Philosopher Kings, but no such luck.  Without fear and without proof, our esteemed professor let’s us know the costs we’re incurring:

…Another example of externalities is the health-care costs of obesity. Obesity costs $147 billion per year in the United States today (9% of total health-care expenditures). Half comes from public funds through Medicare and Medicaid….

& herein lies his final and most dangerous assumption – that taxpayers should be forced to pay for societal solutions whose costs were borne from individual choices.

So long as that assumption is allowed to go unchallenged the “debate” hasn’t really begun.

Late last week, Michael F. Cannon @ Cato released a study entitled, Yes, Mr. President A Free Market Can Fix Health Care in response to a challenge made by President Obama in March 2009:

“If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.”

This is very much a presumption based question, like “When did you stop beating your wife?”  It holds within an assumption the only plausible answer is one which uses the power of the government to control the market, and by extension individual citizens, with complete skepticism about any power of the free market.

While this seems to be the default assumption of many of my fellow citizens these days, I don’t know that I’ll ever understand how an objective look at market success versus an objective look at governmental success would lead one to believe the government is capable of much more than simple, repetitive tasks.

Having said that and even knowing the Democratic leadership and the White House is likely to ignore the answer, Mr. Cannon presents a pretty convincing case about a market solution (@Cato).  He explains:

how Congress can remove the impediments that currently prevent markets from doing so:

Whole thing here.

If you’re anything like me, you too are getting nauseous about the “public option” in the health care debate.  One day it exists, the next day it will never exist.  The day after, it’s required…

Well, apparently legislators might have a compromise to pass a bill including an “opt-out public option” (@theHill.com):

Democratic senators continued to remain bullish on the chances of creating a government-run public option as part of health reform….

…Schumer echoed the calls of several senators who this week said that Democratic negotiators has garned the 60 votes necessary to invoke closure on the measure. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week put it in even stronger terms, saying that Reid had 60 votes for a “robust” public option.

…According to Schumer, Reid “is leaning strongly” toward including a provision that would allow states to opt out of public health insurance if they want to keep private insurers.

Schumer added that the liberal senators are “able to live with” an opt-out public option under which states could decline to participate in a public program….

So there we are;  in a compromise between moderate and liberal Democrats only, a public option seems likely.  Not only has the White House and Democratic leadership dropped any pretense of working across the isle, but people at large seem unwilling to question the claims of their leaders.

One suc spurious claim, is that this option will result in increasing competition:

…”We need some competition for the insurance companies,” Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” A government-run insurance plan would “have to play by the same rules as the insurance companies and it would negotiate rates with the providers,” Schumer said. Having a public option would bring competition to states that only have one or two insurance providers, Schumer said….

Proponents everywhere continue to take this stance, even though a public option is logically inconsistent with their stated goal of increase competition.

If Mr. Schumer and others truly wanted to add some competition for insurance companies, adding a new company would not be necessary.  In deed, removing the laws the disallow selling of insurance over state lines doesn’t cost the tax payers one single dime, yet increases competition dramatically, both in the total number of competitors and the speed at which they can begin competing.    Additionally, given the benefits a public option will have over its private competitors, this isn’t really competition.

As Michael Tanner wrote over @ Cato, this support for a public option isn’t likely what it seems (@Cato):

Cognitive dissonance is defined as holding two completely contradictory ideas at the same time.

That seems to be the case with the American public, with a new poll showing rising support for a so-called public option in health care, even as the public continues to oppose greater government control over the health care system….

All in all though, the Democrats hands seem to be very strong hand right now with recent polls showing 57% of the country expressing approval of a public option.   With uninformed voters, an uninformed and uninformative press, and politicians more worried about winning than engaging in honest debates, this compromise might soon become law.

That’s freedom for you – as unfortunate as it seems, whether most people truly understand what the public option entails is irrelevant.  So long as they are willing to approve things they know little about and skip any hard work necessary to critically analyze the problem and various solutions, this new government boondoggle will just continue going forward.

This morning, news outlets everywhere carried recent news out of the Treasury Department.  The Pay Czar, who is certainly living up to the moniker Czar, announced today (WallStreetJournal):

The U.S. pay czar will cut in half the average compensation for 175 employees at firms receiving large sums of government aid, with the vast majority of salaries coming in under $500,000, according to people familiar with the government’s plans.

As expected, the biggest cut will be to salaries, which will drop by 90% on average. Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department’s special master for compensation, also intends to demand a host of corporate governance changes at those firms….

Even without bothering with the fact that the government is not in any position to understand what kind of compensation any single employee should have, this is still a radical and arbitrary move that if continued can work to destabilize the economy.

Beyond that, this decision is an anathema to a free society breaking not only the contract rights of ordinary citizens, but also violating all individuals by pushing a blatant ex  post facto punishment.

In a free society, within reason, individuals should be able to contract for any reason they want.  In this case, you have employees who have privately contracted with their employers for certain remuneration based upon their perceived worth to the company.

I say perceived work, because obviously not all hiring decisions work out for the company even if the employee does very well at their job.  Personality conflicts, culture conflicts, and even performance problems are some of the reasons why a new hire might not work out as expected.  Unless specifically stated in the employment contract, even in these cases the employer’s general resource is firing, not taking back pay.

Adding to this is the simple, real, true fact that this is by its very nature an ex post facto punishment for perceived mismanagement.  It has been a legal tradition for centuries, a that passing laws, which retroactively punish people, is against a free in democratic society.

In fact it’s in the US Constitution and universally recognized by a number of treaties including Universal Declaration of Human Rights and American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (from Wiki):

…no person be held guilty of any criminal law that did not exist at the time of offence nor suffer any penalty heavier than what existed at the time of offense. It does however permit application of either domestic or international law….

To be fair, there are some uses for ex post facto laws which have been recognized by our supreme court including allowing for Congress to grant administrative agencies the ability to do just this thing.  So legally speaking, this might be ok, however to anyone who proposes to value freedom, it should be obvious that even allowing administrative agencies this power was a massive failure of all branches of the government.  They are supposed to protect our freedoms, not remove them one at a time.

Either way – it’s intuitive that both contract rights & ex post facto laws are required for a free society.  If the government can interfere at will in private contracts and retroactively punish you for perceived wrongdoings, you have no ability to make relevant decisions for your life as you have no ability to be secure that those decisions will continue to hold true.

This insecurity is what creates instability in most third world countries today.  This lack of basic economic & legal foundation is what continues to plague most of the planet and yet we seem to be moving on the same path.

A week ago or so, a Democratic non-profit held a focus group of GOP members & Independents (here).  Among other interesting things they found, they noted how the GOP members opposed the President because they felt he was attempting to fundamentally move away from our founding principles.

They went further to note how this differed from Independents “underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters”.

I will say this move is absolute proof that the GOP members have it right.  If the administration allows this travesty, it is without a doubt a complete move away from not only our founding principles, but away from freedom in general.

Over at the Huffington Post, Keli Goff wrote an interesting, yet disturbingly short sighted piece about particular health care costs which exist in large part due to personal private choices.

She begins the piece titled Mad at Greedy Insurers for This Health Care Mess? Then Why Aren’t You Mad at Your Greedy Neighbors discussing the government’s bail out of private businesses:

Raise your hand if you are still filled with anger when you hear the name AIG and picture the more than $100 million of your tax dollars that were delegated–without your consent–for employee bonuses there.

Now raise your hand if you were angry when you learned that Citigroup (which has received so much bailout money that American taxpayers have been dubbed “its major stockholder”) was planning to spend $50 million of your money on a luxury jet….

Even though the numbers she sights are a far cry from the actual tax dollars given to private business, she uses the anger over the bail outs to compare with the lack of anger of health care costs related to personal choice:

…There is something inherently distasteful about being expected to foot the tax bill for someone else’s personal choices–particularly bad ones–and not being given any choice of your own in the matter. Which is why I am so surprised that there has been so little anger expressed by leaders on either side of the health care debate when it comes to the issue of personal choice and responsibility in health care…

…According to the Centers for Disease Control, “obesity costs our nation as much as $147 billion per year in direct health care costs and lost productivity.” And according to the nation’s oldest anti-smoking organization smoking costs taxpayers a whopping $300 billion dollars annually, or 1,000 times the amount of the AIG bonuses….

Utilizing this ratio of anger levels contrasted with actual dollars, she follows through by discussing the trait both costs have in common, personal responsibility:

…Some health care reform advocates will argue these costs would be lower if there were government subsidized health care, but my question is why should the government, specifically taxpayers, subsidize health care costs for conditions that are not only preventable but essentially chosen by the patient? With all of the anger surrounding the health care debate, at town halls, in the House and Senate, where is the anger about personal responsibility?…

Like many before her, she perfectly frames the clear distinction between individual actions which don’t harm others and societal responsibility.  She uses our innate disgust of having to foot the bill for the negative consequences of others and sees the fundamental issue of both problems.

If only she had stopped there.  If only she understood clearly that when I hurt myself, I should be the only one liable for the resolution, we’d be in total agreement.  Instead, she illogically assumes that individual responsibility is shared among all citizens:

…To be clear, personal responsibility is not only up to consumers.  Mayor Bloomberg’s success in curbing smoking in New York is due to a multi-pronged strategy of aggressively fining bars and restaurants that allow patrons to flout the anti-smoking ban and raising the cost of cigarettes, in essence targeting the dealer as much as the addict….

Not only is responsibility shared in her view, but government force is also the solution.  Therefore since targeting these “bad smoking” behaviors has coincided with a decrease in the number of smokers , why not continue these policies to control other “bad” behaviors?

…A similar strategy should be undertaken federally against fatty foods and drinks (including many of the ones I love).  But as long as groups like the AFL-CIO oppose efforts to hold Americans financially accountable for their personal health choices, so that the system can afford to treat those who do not choose to be sick…

Thinking more critically though, this turns out to be very short sighted thinking devoid of any historical context and antithetical to fundamental human behavior.  Indeed, I think most people agree with her that when people make bad decisions that affect only themselves, they should be solely responsible for the consequences.

Where she fails is in properly analyzing government as the solution.  If one fully analyzes her solution, the lack of follow through in her thinking becomes easily spotted.

First, we know that human behaviors are heavily influenced by incentives.  It’s natural and obvious; we do things that benefit us.  For those willing to see reality for what it is, examples are all around us.  We can see it in the use of commission programs for corporate sales force.  We see it in TV commercials and marketing campaigns.  We even see it in the tax code.   Through denial or lack of contemplation though, some fail to see that this same fundamental human behavior also affects our decisions as they relate to health care.

In fact, one of the reasons for rising health care costs and bad personal choices is individual consumers have been moved further and further away from the actual cost.   In the US, part of rise in health care costs can be attributed to  government incentives which pushed health care plans away from individuals and towards employers.  For the same reason, others countries with socialized medicine also see rapidly rising costs of health care.

Second, we also know that historically, when governments are given the power continue to assume more and more control over individual lives, it ends in tyranny.  As we allow government to assume more responsibility for individual actions, we necessitate their ability to control those actions.

Assuming we still believe in a free society, one of the prices we pay is having the responsibility for the negative consequences brought about by our choices.

For instance, if you smoke – society doesn’t owe you CHEMO.  If I you eat 30K calories a day – society doesn’t owe you gastric bypass surgery.  If you drink a bottle of whiskey a day – society doesn’t owe you a liver.

However, by not of following the logic of her solutions and ignoring historical contexts, she can safely and happily assume government control is the answer:

…So the next time you are reminded of how angry you are at AIG or any other institution that was “bailed out” with your money, just remember that AIG may have mugged you once, but McDonald’s and your neighbor keeping them in business (and whoever invented the doughnut, bacon cheeseburger), will be sucking your wallet dry for decades to come….

Which only leaves us in the end with nothing more than a false dichotomy as if we only have two choices:  either we pay for it or we control it.

Really, due to faulty logic, she has unwittingly made a very cogent argument against government provided health care.  IE – we don’t need to control that behavior if we are not paying for it.

But I don’t know if she understands that by continuing to promote societal responsibility for individual choices, she is also logically promoting less freedom and more government intrusion.  I don’t know if she even believes in the value and morality of freedom.  I also don’t know that she doesn’t fully understands all of this, but due to value differences only, still believes government control to be the answer to health care problems.  And I really don’t know which is worse – being wrong based upon ignorance or understanding the full ramifications of increased government control, but not caring.

The truly concerning part should be that it doesn’t matter which is worse as the results are always the same.   For as long as we have enough people with these types of beliefs, we will continue to lose more and more individual freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

“We must show that liberty is not merely one particular value but that it is the source and condition of most moral values. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free.”

Gun advocates have long contended the anti-gun lobby is only using guns as a stepping stone to slowly remove other freedoms.  Like the saying, “They first came for the communists, but I wasn’t a communist.”  Indeed, this is truism that writers have told us for centuries: freedom is precious and must be protected.  As Hayek stated:

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”

Well, not to be ones to go against a historical truth nor stop our descent into statism,  statists moved from guns, to smoking, to obesity.   We’ve seen smoking bans in most states, some so restrictive that it makes illegal smoking in tractor trailers as they are assumed to be a “place of business”, banning handguns in major cities,  to the banning of actual cooking ingredients such as transfats.

It never seems to dawn on any of the proponents, that each of these laws removes one additional freedom.  Nor do statists seem to understand that humans will find ways to behave exactly as they wish regardless.  This is especially true of economic regulations, but also of business regulations meant to influence individual behavior.

For instance, during the recent concentrated attacks on America’s obesity “problem”, many local and state governments have looked into legislating calorie counts and nutritional value be available on the menu itself.  Apparently, having to ask for the nutritional value which is already available was too difficult, hence the reason to further regulate.

It matters little that giving nutritional value by request or forcing it on the menu doesn’t to change behavior.  Than proposed bans on food advertising will have little effect:

George Mason University’s Todd Zywicki noted at a forum last summer that the average American child actually watches less TV than he did 15 years ago. What’s more, children face less exposure to food ads now than they did then, for a variety of reasons. The remote control has made ad-watching optional over the last 20 years, and more recent technology like TiVo may make traditional commercials completely obsolete…

Indeed, the reason also has little to do with good business, such as McDonald’s excelling by giving clients good tasting food at relatively cheap prices very quickly.  Research has shown:

…The economist Tomas Philipson and I have written about the economics of obesity. We have pointed out that the decline in the price of fatty foods, along with the rise in the opportunity cost of physical activity (work is more sedentary than it used to be, so one has to invest extra time to get exercise, and television and video games have increased the utility that people derive from sedentary leisure pursuits), explains the dramatic long-term increase in the percentage of Americans who are seriously overweight….

Same with gun control advocates.  They don’t seem to worry about inconvenient facts like banning handguns in very high crime areas does little to prevent crime, but does a lot in preventing citizens from exercising their freedom to self-defense.  In Chicago:

Far more of the guns seized at crime scenes in Illinois come from Illinois than any other state.

It doesn’t even matter that we can see the slippery slope happening right in front of us.  For instance,  if we can ban smoking in private business establishments, why not private vehicles?  Crazy you say?  It’s already happening in limited fashion as we speak for child custody cases.

No, proponents everywhere of using government force for your own good, don’t seem to be able to see any consequences other than their pet project.  All that seems to matter today, is that enough people think the action is bad and are willing to use government coercion as a means to an end.

For a country with a history of trying to prevent the exploitation of minority groups by the majority, and indeed a Constitution to enshrine that very ideal, we’re moving quickly into tyrannical rule by the majority.  Let’s all remember, that we are a Constitutional Republic, because true Democracy is nothing more than allowing 51% of the population to enslave 49% of the population by simple majority vote.

From Mother Jones:

Michael Moore is at it again. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he took on US foreign policy as brought to us by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In Sicko, he dissected the health insurance industry. And in his new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, he challenges the fundamental organizing principle of American society: private enterprise….

Yes, it’s yet another propaganda film  from Michael Moore (as if he’s capable of much else).  As with his previous films, it will probably be entertaining and no doubt some parts of society will use it as proof that capitalism is evil.  All the while, they will ignore the irony that the system the are despising is responsible for the very freedom they use to speak against it.  That capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than Hugo Chavez, Che, Trotsky, and all the other “revolutionaries” combined.  History has proven this to be true time and time again.

I know what they’ll say though, “All we need is the right leaders this time and all will be well.”  So they might as well use their idol to sum up the film:

…The film climaxes with never-before-seen footage Moore’s researchers uncovered of FDR telling the American public in 1944 on the radio that the nation needed a second Bill of Rights that would guarantee Americans the right to a job, to a home, to an education, and to medical care. “Unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world,” Roosevelt says….

Ah, the fabled FDR… fabled that is so long as you ignore history; like the fact he made the Great Depression 7 years longer through his “New Deal” policies:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt….

…”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”…

Or the fact he tried to use court stacking tactics to bypass that pesky, out of date, worthless document formerly known as the US Constitution, basically making the point that “If it’s unConstitutional, find new judges”:

…Since the U.S. Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt, having won an expanded electoral mandate in his reelection, sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.  Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court leading to the name “Court-packing Plan”….

Or the fact he ran for his fourth term when he was too ill to govern.  Yes, let’s ignore the fact he was so self-absorbed and arrogant, that he demonstrated through his actions, he was willing to stay President of the US, with all its power, even though it was obvious he was no longer up to the task (here):

…Roosevelt, who turned 62 in 1944, had been in declining health since at least 1940. The strain of his paralysis and the physical exertion needed to compensate for it for over 20 years had taken their toll, as had many years of stress and a lifetime of chain-smoking. By this time, Roosevelt had numerous ailments including chronic high blood pressure, emphysema, systemic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, and myopathic hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. Dr. Emanuel Libman, then an assistant pathologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, reacting to Roosevelt’s appearance in newsreels, remarked in 1944 that “It doesn’t matter whether Roosevelt is re-elected or not, he’ll die of a cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months” (which he did, five months later)….

Yes, after all those reasons to re-think the glory that is the Presidency of FDR, we know have, thanks to Michael Moore, proof that FDR was a true socialist.  Like many socialists, he was more than willing to spend your money in furtherance of his goals, even though it’s failed ever single time it was tried…

But when defeating evil, the goal is righteous:

…”Capitalism is an evil,” Moore narrates, as the film concludes, “and you cannot regulate an evil. You have to eliminate it.” …

It’s an odd position to take that allowing people the freedom to enter into contracts for work or to barter or for any other economic reason they choose is evil, but he knows what’s best and that’s just the way it is.  After all, if you disagree, you’re probably “evil”.

Irregardless of Michael Moore’s lack of understanding as it relates to gun rights, health care, 9/11, and now… his complete lack of critical thought on capitalism, there is a silver lining:

…After a screening in Washington on Tuesday night, Moore told the audience that if people don’t rise up and take action after watching this film, that’s it—he’s done making movies. I can do other things, he remarked….

One can hope those other things include spending his own money to provide health care and housing for the poor, instead of using the government as his weapon to force everyone else to do what he thinks is right.

With the state of Missouri’s recent fiscal problems and a 9.4% unemployment rate, the state worker’s union has decided now is the time to act.

Questions for the unions:  Is it time to cut back?  Become more lean?  Follow the rest of private industry and cut back as revenue growth loses momentum?

Union’s answer:  Surely ye jest!  We’re the union & the time is ripe for a pay raise!

That’s correct.  As the entire state population spends less money to try to tread water in these tight times, the unions apparently believe they are in prime position to negotiate:

…The union has proposed a 6 percent annual pay raise for the next three years and a “fair share” fee for nonunion members who are covered by union-negotiated contracts. The negations are over a contract for patient care support workers that expired in June and one for craft and maintenance employees that expired in December.

But wait!  Ask them nicely and they’ll tell you that they only have the best of intentions:

Curt Ostrander, the union’s chief negotiator, told The Associated Press that the union’s priority is protect state workers, address staff shortages and help people do their jobs better. He described discussions with the state thus far as “cooperative,” and said the two sides are trying to find ways to be more efficient to save money and solve problems.

“Our top priorities are to provide a contract that gives workers the necessary protection in order for them to perform their jobs in a safe, effective manner and to provide state services,” Ostrander said….

For those MBA’s out there – please note the very sound logic incorporated in “address staff shortages and become more efficient to save money” while simultaneously asking for a 6% raise for the next 3 years during a recession.

The audacity it takes to ask the tax payers of this state to pony up 6% annual raises, while many in the state can’t or won’t get a raise at all this year, is pompous and arrogant.

This combined with them selling the money grab as something that will reduce costs, while increasing staff, is completely disingenuous.

To be fair, this is an opening gambit and it’s not likely they’ll get everything (though the governor is pro-union), but if we continue to allow our elected leaders and unelected leaders (read: special interests) to operate within side the quiet world of doublespeak without so much as a whimper of an objection, then we surely are going to get exactly what we deserve.

Read all about government wages versus free market wages in The Great Recession here