Blame Conservatives for Ohio's Issue 2 Loss

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." Lord Acton - The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877

Much ink and bandwith has been spilled analyzing the reasons Ohio's collective bargaining reform law, Issue 2, failed to survive Tuesday's referendum.  Many suspect it was the millions of dollars poured into the anti-Issue 2 campaign by the out-of-state Big Labor groups and the blatantly deceptive ads that ran constantly on radio and TV stations across the state. Those were certainly major factors in the outcome. Some say that Governor Kasich and the Republican legislature overreached by including police and firefighters - that they should have been exempted from the reforms because they gave opponents ammunition for the aforementioned despicable ads that implied that police and firefighters would be in danger as would everyone else in Ohio. Again, that was a factor in the outcome. 

But the real reason Issue 2 went down on Tuesday is that conservatives voted against it. Tea Party members, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives - conservatives of every stripe in Ohio  voted save their "benefits" and the "benefits" of their union friends and relatives.  

The Ohio Constitution has an unfortunate provision that allows citizens to both amend the constitution and to call for a referendum to stop a new law from taking effect - a citizen's veto. While all this "We the People" language sounds good on paper, the reality is that it shifts the power to make laws from the legislature to special interest groups and uninformed citizens, most of whom don't bother to actually read the laws, let alone understand the implications of them. It has the effect of turning the state into a direct democracy.

When SB5 became law, Big Labor immediately went to work to gather enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot so Ohio voters would have the opportunity to veto the legislation that the duly elected state legislature had passed and the duly elected governor had signed into law. From there, it was just a matter of convincing enough people that this new law would cost them money and cost their beloved "public servants" money. 

I began to see the trajectory this past spring when a teacher told me she had signed the petition to put SB5 on the ballot. She said they had passed it around at school  and "everyone" had signed it.  This was a conservative teacher from a conservative school in a district where most people would never dream of voting for a Democrat. As we headed into fall I began to see the anti-Issue 2 signs springing up amid the falling leaves in the yards of union members in our small town.  This is a town where it's rare to see a Democrat on the Village Council or school board and 56% voted for Governor Kasich. Hardly blue country, but the township voted down the collective bargaining reforms 61-39%.  These same voters (65% of them) overwhelmingly said they wanted Ohio to be protected from Obamacare. Again, hardly blue country. 

The unpleasant truth is that union members- conservative union members - voted with their pocketbooks. They saw (or most likely heard from their union bosses) that SB5 would cost them money and they voted to preserve the status quo. Their friends and family members also voted in solidarity with them. It's quite an easy thing to say we're Tea Party members and believe that we're 'Taxed Enough Already,'  but when it becomes personal and we're forced to have some skin in the game, how many of us would give up part of our paycheck or some of our benefits to help our state's bottom line? 

Issue 2 could not have passed without strong support from Republicans and conservatives. The state's 300,000 public employees (and 655,000 union members overall) barely made a dent in the 2 million votes against the measure.  Consider that more Ohioans voted against Issue 2 than voted for Governor Kasich (1,889,186) or Governor Strickland (1,812,052) in the last election.  

This was a big test for the conservative movement and Tea Party values and I'm disappointed to say we failed miserably.  As much as I dislike the direct democracy component of the Ohio Constitution, it does give us some insight into whether conservatives will put their money where their mouth is.  Human nature is such that men and women will, if given the opportunity, vote against measures that hit them in the pocketbook. Never mind that eventually, all Ohio taxpayers - union and non-union alike - will be paying for these gold-plated benefits for generations to come. At least those Akron public employees still don't have to pay anything for their pensions and healthcare this year. 

All of us who call ourselves conservatives need to do some soul searching in the wake of this huge loss in Ohio. While most of us in the private sector have had to deal with austerity measures in the workplace, for the most part, it hasn't been voluntary. We need to ask ourselves if we're willing to have skin in the game to help our country (or our state or our city) begin to dig out from the overwhelming burden of debt we find ourselves in. 

Or is the modern conservative movement merely slogans and academic discussion? 

Cross-posted at RedState

Ohio Issue 2 - A Proper Redress (Part 3)

[Read Part 1 to see the reasons I believe the reforms in Issue 2 are needed]


[Read Part 2 to see how SB 5 affects safety forces]


In this post I'd like to discuss how Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) if enacted, will affect teachers. As I said in my previous post, there has been tremendous pressure to "support teachers," with the implication that a YES vote on Issue 2 is analogous to disrespecting teachers or being ungrateful for the work they do. In reality, the opposite is true.


SB 5 will affect teachers in significant ways and it's understandable that they would be concerned. In Part 1 of this series, I explained the new requirements for health care (15%) and pension (10%) contributions. For many teachers, this won't be a change at all, since they're already paying these amounts or more. 


The other game-changer in this piece of legislation is the elimination of automatic step-increases for public employees. Instead, they will be evaluated and paid, in part, based upon their performance.  Nearly everyone in the private sector earns raises based upon performance and they're permitted to continue on the job based upon performance. For public employees in Ohio, there are currently step charts dictating exactly how much each employee makes based upon things like length of service and education level. So each year, they receive a predictable raise, whether or not they have performed well.  Good teachers are paid exactly the same as bad teachers. Layoffs are made based only upon seniority. 


In the new system, teachers would be evaluated and compensated based upon the following:

Sec. 3317.13 (B) Each teacher shall be paid a salary based upon performance as described in this section: 

(C) For purposes of this section, a board shall measure a teacher's performance by considering all of the following:

(1) The level of license issued under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code that the teacher holds;

(2) Whether the teacher is a "highly qualified teacher" as defined in section 3319.074 of the Revised Code; 

(3) The value-added measure the board uses to determine the performance of the students assigned to the teacher's classroom; 

(4) The results of the teacher's performance evaluations conducted under section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or any peer review program created by an agreement entered into by a board of education and representatives of teachers employed by that board; 

(5) Any other criteria established by the board

Here's a video that describes how such a multi-faceted system works in the D.C. school system:

See Part 2 and Part 3.

School boards would use evaluations to make decisions about compensation, nonrenewal of employment contracts, termination, layoffs, and professional development.

The first thing to understand is that no salaries are changed by this law and teachers will still be negotiating wages through collective bargaining. The big change is that teachers will no longer be awarded raises just for showing up to work for another year. 


There will be a model assessment framework created by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE). This will be an open and transparent process as SBE meetings are open to the public and all proceedings are subject to Ohio's Sunshine Laws.  Local school boards may use the SBE's model assessment or create their own, based upon the requirements of SB 5. 


Each board, in consultation with teachers, will create an evaluation system that:

(1) Is evidence-based and uses multiple measures of a teacher's use of knowledge and skills and of students' academic progress;

(2) Is aligned with the standards for teachers adopted under section 3319.61 of the Revised Code;

(3) Provides statements of expectation for professional performance and establishes specific criteria of expected job performance in the areas of responsibility assigned to the teacher.

(4) Requires observation of the teacher being evaluated by the person conducting the evaluation on at least two occasions for not less than thirty minutes on each occasion;

(5) Requires that each teacher be provided with a written report of the results of the teacher's evaluation that includes specific recommendations

Each teacher will be evaluated on the following, once each year in April:

The framework shall require at least fifty per cent of each evaluation to be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the department of education. When applicable to a teacher, those measures shall include student performance on the assessments prescribed under sections 3301.0710 and 3301.0712 of the Revised Code and the value-added progress dimension prescribed by section 3302.021 of the Revised Code.

(1) Quality of instructional practice, which may be determined by announced and unannounced classroom observations and examinations of samples of work, such as lesson plans or assessments designed by theteacher;

(2) Communication and professionalism, including how well the teacher interacts with students, parents, other school employees, and members of thecommunity.

(3) Parent and student satisfaction, which may be  measured by surveys,questionnaires, or other forms of soliciting feedback.

Those of you who work in the private sector will likely read these requirements and find them familiar; this is how the majority of workers in Ohio are evaluated for raises and promotions. They certainly don't seem unreasonable. Those of us with children in the public schools would like to know our children's teachers are on the job because they are competent teachers, not merely because they have a degree and a teaching license. 


It's important to understand that "student performance on assessments" is only used as an evaluation method "when applicable." So, for example, it would not be part of the art teacher's evaluation because there is no current achievement test for art. The same for kindergarten. However, there would still be a requirement to measure "student growth" with a "value-added" dimension. For those not familiar with education lingo, this means that rather than a pass/fail system on mandated tests or assessments, the student's growth from year to year is the measure of success.  Who could argue with that?


Here's my take: If you're a good teacher, you're already doing all of this and you have nothing to fear from these reforms. If you're a great teacher, you may even be better-compensated for your efforts. If you're terrified that this new law will punish you in some way, then a little soul-searching is in order. Perhaps you're the reason we need performance pay.


There are a couple other items that might be of interest to teachers (and those who care about them).  The first is the provision that continuing contracts (tenure) will be retained for those who have already attained that status (ORC 3319.1). However, going forward, this will be eliminated. 


The other is a new provision that will ban forced fair share dues to unions. If teachers (or other public employee at a union-represented workplace) decides that they don't want to continue to fund the Ohio Education Association's liberal political agenda - namely funding the Ohio Democratic Party - they can now opt out without being forced to pay fair share dues. 

In most cases, paying fair share dues is the same as paying union does. In either case, the employee still receives union representation in contract negotiations. See here for an example of the differences.  The union bosses hate, hate, hate this provision because they know many people aren't thrilled about about its leaders, who pull in six-figure salaries and run an organization rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse. They know that if given the opportunity, union members will bolt and the money will dry up. But it's great news if you're a conservative teacher and you're tired of being shaken-down for union or fair share dues.


I realize this is a tough sell to teachers. I've heard stories of young teachers who have been pressured at work to sign the petitions and work for a NO on Issue 2. I also realize there's a conflict for some between an ideology of fiscal conservatism and a need to provide for one's own family. In a sense, this is where the rubber meets the road.

If you are a teacher, please understand that we don't all think you're greedy or that you've single-handedly bankrupted the state. We appreciate what you do for our kids. But also please understand that these adjustments you are being asked to make are the same ones we in the private sector have been making for years. Our family's health insurance costs have skyrocketed in recent years to $700/month. 


A couple years ago, Sherwin-Williams, where my husband works, cut back their contribution to his 401K from 6% to 3% due to the economic downturn. While we were disappointed by the reduction, we were glad that it wasn't a layoff notice and glad the company is fiscally responsible - that they haven't had to make layoffs when many other companies have (they reinstated the the full contribution this year).  For that matter, we're grateful that they contribute anything at all.  Many private sector employees don't have retirement funds at all and, like my mother-in-law, will depend entirely on a meager Social Security check in retirement. 

I hope teachers and those who want to support them will consider voting YES on Issue 2. In addition to giving school districts tools to control their budgets and help avert layoffs, it will help to keep and reward the best teachers, which is best for the kids. 

Ohio Issue 2 - A Proper Redress (Part 2)

BLOG UPDATE:  I've re-decorated and re-named my blog. I've also moved it. See here for the details.  I'll continue to post at both blogs for a short time, but I'd appreciate it if you'd follow me over to the new place and update your subscriptions and feeds.


****************************************************************




[Part 1 - Why reforms are needed]
[Part 3 - Teachers]

If you live in Ohio, you know about Issue 2, which is a referendum to stop the union/public employment reforms enacted by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Kasich. The airwaves have been filled with emotional ads featuring teachers, firefighters, nurses, paramedics, and police officers. 

Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric has seemed personal. If you say you are voting YES on Issue 2 (voting for the reforms), you're told you are trying to "destroy the middle class" (even if you are middle class yourself), you want to put safety forces in danger, and you want to see your child's teacher unemployed (and poor). It's no wonder there are very few Yes on 2 signs in Ohio yards. Who would want to admit to all that? 

To ramp up the emotional blackmail appeal, the AFL-CIO is now running ads with firefighters who served our country as soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In one ad, a Columbus firefighter and war veteran says:

"I never expected to have to fight our own government… to have a voice in my own safety and work conditions."

From the AFL-CIO blog:

“We didn’t expect this kind of homecoming when we came back,” says Columbus fire fighter David Jarvis, who served in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and served in Operation Desert Storm during the first Gulf War."

The claim that public employees will not have a "voice in their own safety and work conditions" has been repeated throughout the campaign and I suspect it will convince a lot of people to vote to strike down the reforms in SB5. We've been told that not only will police and firefighters be in danger, but our own families will be as well.  One radio ad featured a 911 call with the dispatcher telling a frightened family with a robber in their home that the police wouldn't arrive for 20 minutes because they were short staffed.  Listeners were told this is what we should expect if Issue 2 passes. 


But is it true?


The answer depends upon which question you're asking. Let's try to unravel a few of them.


First, let me take a minute to explain exactly what Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) is. Many of its opponents have claimed that it's 300 pages long and very confusing.  The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio said, "This 300 page bill is very complicated and proposes to make numerous, substantial and interrelated changes in the law." That's a half-truth, at best. 


The introduction to SB 5 says, 

"AN ACT To amend sections [then it lists dozens of sections] of the Revised Code to make various changes to laws concerning public employees, including collective bargaining, salary schedules and compensation, layoff procedures, and leave."

The vast majority of the 300 pages of this Act, which became a Bill (SB 5) and then became a law (remember School House Rock? I'm Just a Bill?), are sections of the Revised Code that have remained unchanged. The entire text of each section that has even one word changed must be included, which means that a LOT of ink is spilled when ever there is a new law passed!  Here's an example:

(C) Unless a public employer specifically agrees otherwise in an express written provision of a collective bargaining agreement, nothing in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code impairs the right and responsibility of each public employer to:

(1) Determine matters of inherent managerial policy which include, but

are not limited to areas of discretion or policy such as the functions and

programs of the public employer, standards of services, its overall budget,

utilization of technology, and organizational structure;

(2) Direct, supervise, evaluate, or hire employees;

(3) Maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of

governmental operations;

(4) Determine the overall methods, process, means, or personnel by

which governmental operations are to be conducted;

(5) Suspend, discipline, demote, or discharge for just cause, or lay off,

transfer, assign, schedule, promote, or retain employees;

(6) Determine the adequacy of the work force;

(7) Determine the overall mission of the employer as a unit of

government;

(8) Effectively manage the work force;

(9) Take actions to carry out the mission of the public employer as a

governmental unit Hire, discharge, transfer, suspend, or discipline

employees;

(2) Determine the number of persons required to be employed or laid

off;

(3) Determine the qualifications of employees;

(4) Determine the starting and quitting time and the number of hours to

be worked by its employees;

(5) Make any and all reasonable rules and regulations;

(6) Determine the work assignments of its employees;

(7) Determine the basis for selection, retention, and promotion of

employees;

Wherever something is crossed out, it means something has been removed from existing law. When something is underlined, it has been added. Text with no markings is current law that remains unchanged. If you take a minute to skim through the new law, you'll see that the majority of it remains unchanged. Opponents of SB 5 would have us believe that the Republicans add 300 pages of new laws. That's simply not true.


Now back to the issue of safety forces. At issue is this:

(B) The following subjects are not appropriate subjects for collective
bargaining:

(5) The number of employees required to be on duty or employed in any
department, division, or facility of a public employer

 (F) Notwithstanding division (C) of this section, equipment issues
directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.

If you've been following along, you noted that this is underlined, so it's been added to existing law.  So it's true that public employees will not be allowed to collectively bargain for staffing levels.  However, claims that it would be "illegal" for public employees to talk to their employers about staffing levels are merely hyperbole. No firefighters or teachers will be thrown in jail for expressing their opinions about staffing levels and exercising their First Amendment rights. The new law just says that it can't be a subject of the "official" collective bargaining process. 


Note also that safety forces can collectively bargain for safety equipment. This is a new right that they did not have before SB5.  Apparently the unions are not telling their members this, because I've seen comments all over the blogs saying they will not have this right if SB5 is enacted. 


However, the more important question is whether that will make them (and us) less safe. Since individual police officers, firefighters and paramedics won't be deciding on staffing levels, it will be left to the discretion of management - that means fire and police chiefs. Of course, they will have to work within the budget dictated by the local government unit, but why wouldn't they be competent to make intelligent, informed decisions about staffing levels? They have years of experience in their areas of expertise and are well-qualified for this task. 


Opponents of Issue 2 would have us believe that miserly city councils and township trustees would immediately slash budgets and cut safety forces down to skeleton crews in order to build new dog parks.  What motive they supposedly have for putting their constituents and their own families in danger, I do not know. 


The truth is, there is not an unlimited pot of money from which to pay safety forces, though Ohio governments have lived in that fantasy land for many years now. In the past, when unions would show up at the bargaining table to demand more, more, more, an impasse could result in binding arbitration, where the recommendation (and mandate) might be for the city to borrow money to meet the demands.  SB 5 gives local governments tools to control their budgets including controlling staffing levels, eliminating binding arbitration, and requiring public employees to pay minimal amounts toward their health care and pensions. 


The result of not enacting these reforms is the real danger. With bloated budgets and unsustainable projected deficits in cities across the country, layoffs will be necessary. That is a far more serious concern than trusting fire chiefs and police chiefs to decide staffing levels based on actual, realistic budgets. The money pot has run out and cities need these tools to keep us safe and to keep us from fiscal disasters. 

Ohio Issue 2 - A Proper Redress (Part 1)

I'm going to be writing a series of blog posts over the next few days, addressing the specific issues related to Ohio Issue 2/SB 1. For today, I'd like to share a Letter to the Editor I sent to the Daily Record (Wooster) today. I had to heavily edit to keep it from becoming a manifesto with a length rivaling War and Peace.  I plan to address some of these issues with more specificity in the coming days. 

Those of us who are voting YES on Issue 2 have been accused of everything from wanting to destroy the middle class to putting the lives of our firefighters in danger.

The truth is, most of us are just concerned citizens who see the budget crisis on our doorstep and realize that reforms are needed. While many public employees already pay 15% of their health care and 10% of their pensions—some even more— many do not. The average city workers in Ohio pay 9% for their health care, compared to 23% for the private sector. Akron’s teachers and city workers pay nothing toward their own health care. A YES on Issue 2 would require public employees to pay 15%, still well below the state average for the private sector. (And they’ll still be able to bargain for safety equipment, wages, terms, and conditions.)

In Columbus, the city pays both the employer (taxpayer) and the employee portion of the pension for city employees—they don’t contribute a dime toward their own pensions, a practice called pension pickups. Pension pickups cost Columbus $36 million in 2011. A YES on Issue 2 would stop the practice of taxpayers footing the bill for the public employees’ portion of the pension contribution.

Obviously, these perks are completely out of line with the private sector. We must remember that all Ohio taxpayers pay for these gold-plated benefit plans through our state tax dollars, which are redistributed to municipalities and school districts across the state.

This isn’t personal—the hard truth is that these benefit packages are no longer sustainable. School districts and municipalities across the state are projecting huge deficits over the next five years. The Akron City Schools are projecting a $142 million deficit by 2015, when personnel costs will consume 93% of the district’s budget. (Find your district’s projections here.) This will certainly lead to massive teacher layoffs and this scenario will be repeated in school districts, cities, and counties across the state.

Vote YES on Issue 2 to save jobs and put us back on the road to balanced budgets in our school districts, our cities, our counties, and our small towns. If you need to know more, www.iVoters.com is a great non-partisan website for information on all three of Ohio's ballot issues.


[Part 2 - Safety Forces]    [Part 3 - Teachers]

OH Union activist: Tim McVeigh would be a member of the Tea Party

Happy Labor Day from the Ohio unions!

From Facebook:

Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5

If Timothy McVeigh Was Alive Today, He Would Be A Member Of The Tea Party

Wall Photos

Share · 11 hours ago

• 2 people like this.
• • 
    

    [name removed] Doubtful and not a very good attempt at humor. Shame on you!
    

    4 hours ago
  • 
    

    Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5 The post wasn't meant to be funny, or a one size fits all indictment. The post was shared to provoke thought. If you feel that 99% of what I post is worthwhile , then shake your head when I post something you don't agree with. If you feel ONE controversial post is a reason to berate me as childish and shameless, that is your perogative. I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate here offering to spend the 2 to 3 hours a day I spend scouring the internet and news feeds to supply this page with content. I have stated several times in the past that I would appreciate and encourage others to post relevant content but have seen little in the way of cooperation. If you feel strongly enough about particular posts, please feel free to comment..I reserve the right to ban users when they feel personal insults are the order of the day.
    

    2 hours ago
  • 
    

    Union Workers Opposed to Senate Bill 5 ‎**A Prior Comment has Been Removed**
    

    about an hour ago

    
    

    People who like this

    • 
      

      [name removed]
    • 
      

      [name removed]

    
    
    

*********************************************************************************
The "prior comment" that was removed simply said, "sick." It unleashed a tirade from the Facebook page administrator who spends "2 to 3 hours a day" inventing new ways to insult and ridicule Republicans and the Tea Party yet feels personally insulted by the word "sick" attributed to her Tim McVeigh post. The detractor has now been banned from the Facebook page.

This is the beginning of the silly season in Ohio, where the balance of power has shifted to "we the people" in way that is detrimental to the state.

Though there hasn't been much national attention given to Ohio's union reform measure - SB5 - things are beginning to heat up. Governor Kasich and the Republican-controlled legislature succeeded in passing some common-sense reforms that give local governments better control over their budgets.
While still allowing public employees to collectively bargain over their wages and some benefits, it removed or reduced their collective bargaining leverage in the areas of health insurance and pensions and requires government employees to pay a certain percentage of those benefits. It also requires that employee performance be a factor in determining compensation. See here and here for some basics.

Although there were some protests at the Ohio Statehouse, it wasn't anywhere near the scale of Wisconsin because the unions knew that when Governor Kasich signed SB5 into law this spring the fight had just begun.That's because the Ohio Constitution gives "the people" the power to call for a referendum to challenge a law they don't like. If a special interest group can get 6% of the electorate to sign a petition, they can get it on the ballot and shift the balance from a republic form of government to a pure democracy in certain cases. This process can also be used to amend the Ohio Constitution. It was used in recent years to legalize casino gambling in the state after years of failing to get it through the legislature.

In this case, the unions needed around 200,000 signature. They collected over 700,000 and instead of protests at the capitol, where citizens are lobbying their elected officials as we usually see in a republic form of government, citizens are lobbying (and bullying) their fellow citizens.


"We are Ohio," the group working to repeal the union reforms, has already begun running the typical firefighters-are-going-to-die ads. They will likely follow this with the typical your-kid's-teacher-will-have-to-eat-dog-food-if-this-thing-isn't-repealed ads.


In Wisconsin, by the time the recall elections were held, the state was already benefiting from the reforms Gov. Walker and the legislature had put in place. Unfortunately, in Ohio SB5 has been put on hold, pending the outcome of the referendum. And while the law is in a holding pattern, local and county governments have been hit hard by cuts in state funding and many have made layoffs and cut services. It hasn't made Governor Kasich or the Republicans especially popular this fall, so they are starting 4th and 20 at their own 1-yard line, to use a football analogy.


That said, the economy has been so bad for so long that those of us in the private sector are seeing our 401K's decline at an alarming pace at the same time our healthcare costs are doubling and tripling. We consider ourselves lucky if our employers contribute anything at all toward our retirement plans.


Meanwhile, the unions are complaining because they're being asked to actually pay the employee's share of their pension contribution. Currently, many of them enjoy the benefit of the state or local government paying both the employer's and the employee's share of their pension contribution. Good deal if you can get it, but it's not sustainable in this day and age.


And most of us don't think it's unreasonable that public employees are being asked to pay 15% toward their health insurance premiums, when most residents in the state pay 30% or more. Or that government employees would be compensated based (in part) on merit rather than just seniority, like those of us in the private sector are.


It remains to be seen whether Building a Better Ohio will have the resources to overcome the rhetoric and the misinformation being spread by those who oppose the reforms. The unions are fighting for their lives and they are fired up.

Beermageddon coming to Ohio

As if Ohio didn't have enough union problems, what with Governor Kasich's bold reforms aimed at curbing the burgeoning budget and the ensuing protests, complete with a referendum repeal effort that gained enough signatures to earn a place on the November ballot.

Marvin Fong - The Plain Dealer

Now we learn that the Teamster's union is threatening to cut off Ohio's beer supply in the midst of the hottest Ohio summer in recent memory.  PR Newswire reports:

"More than 300 delivery drivers and warehouse workers employed by Heidelberg Distributing throughout Ohio put up informational pickets at key distribution facilities around the state today to warn the company and the public of labor problems that could cut off Ohio's supply to beer and wine products during the busy summer season."

What this means is that it is conceivable that Ohioans could have to tough it out through all those miserable, interminable political commercials without the benefit of their favorite alcoholic beverage.  And they may have to cast their votes without the comfort of their favorite brew.  And how will they ever drown their sorrows if their side loses?  

And perhaps most troubling is the stress this may cause in the Ohio legislature when the Teamsters are unable or unwilling to stock the full service bar in the Statehouse.  Bad things are likely to happen, such as lawmakers crossing state lines to drink and drive. 


As for me and my house, we may feel slightly inconvenienced if our supplies of IBC Root Beer and Monster energy drinks are cut off.  There are some benefits to being teetotalers. 


Aside from that,  this may turn out to be an early Christmas present for Kasich and Co.  Unions holding citizens' favorite beverages hostage during this blistering summer in the months leading up to a critical union referendum doesn't seem to be a brilliant strategy.   

Important events in N.E. Ohio

How did it get to be June already?  Here in Ohio, we've had two solid months of Monsoon Season and now, suddenly, it's summer, with temps in the 80's this week and a blur of yellow in the sky.  Meteorologists are still trying to identify it.  


I wanted to highlight a couple important events happening in N.E. Ohio.  I hope my (9) readers in Germany, my (3) readers in the UK and whoever you are in the United Arab Emirates will bear with me for a moment...

Understanding SB5 Discussion in Wadsworth

Date:  Thursday, June 2nd

Time:  7:00pm - 9:00pm

Location: Wadsworth Church of the Nazarene

743 High Street, Wadsworth, Ohio

Melanie Elsey from the American Policy Roundtable will explain what is truly in SB 5, Ohio’s collective bargaining reform bill. Taking a non-partisan approach, she ignores what is being propagated by the left and the right and strictly interprets what is written in the bill.

To gain a full understanding of what this bill means for Ohioans, Melanie has compared SB 5 with our current Ohio Revised Code. For a preview of what may be discussed, visit the Frequently Asked Question: Ohio SB 5 as passed by the Ohio General Assembly,

With political propaganda dominating this issue, it’s time to understand the facts. Please bring your family and friends to this informative, honest discussion about SB 5.

~~~~~

Islam and the West

The The AP Roundtable holds policy briefings in communities building leadership networks on special issues and projects. A team of experts come together to talk about timely legislation and issues that impact your community. Join us for a Discussion on: Islam and the West featuring: Robert Spencer Tuesday, June 7th, 2011 at 7 pm Cleveland, Ohio Space is limited and you must be pre-registered. Please RSVP no later than Friday, June 3, 2011. To find out more information and to RSVP to the Ohioevent, contact Allison Allen by phone or email: 1-800-522-VOTE ext. 104 | aallen@aproundtable.org Please provide your name, address, phone and email address. To help host or schedule a policy briefing near you, please contact: Rob Walgate, V.P. at (800) 522-VOTE ext. 105

Waiting for Superman...in the meantime, there's Kasich.

Last night I attended a screening of the documentary, "Waiting for Superman," hosted by Governor John Kasich and former D.C. Schools Chancellor, Michelle Rhee.  As we pulled up to the Cleveland State University Student Center we saw about a dozen protesters in front of the building.  I caught a glimpse of an anti-SB5 sign as we drove by.  SB5 is Gov. Kasich's public union reform bill and there is no small amount of opposition to it.  


There was a palpable tension in the room.  It was clear that this was not a crowd packed with only partisan Kasich supporters.  Ohio Democratic Party leader Chris Redfern, always ready with a lengthy, rhetoric-laden critique said this:

“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote the agenda of charter school fat cats at an invitation-only event sponsored by the corporate backers of John Kasich’s anti-middle class policies. To say the least."

"Invitation-only event" might be stretching the truth a bit.  I received an e-mail about the event from Americans for Prosperity Ohio.  It said the event was free, but an RSVP was required.  I responded to let someone at Gov. Kasich's office know that I would be attending and added my son's name as well, though he hadn't technically been invited.  Not a problem.  Then, at 4:45, right before the event, I sent another e-mail adding my son's girlfriend.  Again, not a problem. They even managed to have a name tag ready for her when we arrived at 5:45!  So it was clearly not a closed event, though the invitations may have initially been sent to those supportive of school choice. 


The movie "Waiting for Superman" follows the saga of several children trapped in failing public schools in some of the poorest, most crime-ridden cities in the U.S. These children are in desperate circumstances: Daisy, Emily, Francisco, Bianco, Anthony.  Unlike my children, who have had every advantage in life, these children have futures that are bleak, hopeless.  

As we were being introduced to these children and getting a glimpse of the warehouses that pass for schools in their inner-city neighborhoods, the narrative was suddenly interrupted.


The union protesters thought this would be a good time to march through the halls shouting their anti-reform slogans.   It was very disturbing that while people inside the auditorium were in tears over the plight of the children pictured above, union activists were demanding that we maintain the system that is failing these precious children. 


Just as a side note, I have been very frustrated by the misinformation being spread about SB5.  It's not extreme.  It's not "busting the unions," it's not eliminating pensions for government employees, it's not eliminating "tenure" (continuing contracts) for teachers who currently have that status. If you haven't already done so, I would encourage you to read the American Policy Roundtable's Frequently Asked Questions about SB5.  This non-partisan guide answers many of the questions that people on both sides of the issue have been discussing in a fair and non-emotional format.  Please share it with others.  


The movie was disturbing on so many levels.  It's heartbreaking that in the year 2011 we are still sentencing millions of children to spend their formative years in schools from which they will not graduate.   In one school, in the past 40 years, 60,000 students have passed through and only 40,000 have graduated.  What happened to the other 20,000?  


I was surprised to learn that the problems are not just in lower income,  inner-city schools.  Many affluent schools "track" students, meaning someone decides at a young age,  which children are college material and which are better suited for vocational school.  Those who are not deemed college material are put on a track that makes it almost impossible to later change tracks, sealing their fate at a young age.  They receive a far different education than their more academically gifted peers.  


The movie highlighted charter schools  and teachers with innovative solutions that were succeeding in the worst, most poverty-stricken areas of the country. But they've met with resistance from teachers unions and those who consider school reform - school choice - to be a turf war.  And the children pay the price.  It's disgusting and cruel to make these children enter a "lottery" for a 1/732 chance to attend a decent school.  No 2nd grader should have to suffer the fate of being labeled "not accepted" and forced to return to the dropout factory.  I'm in tears again just thinking about the sad faces of the children and the helplessness of their parents. 


Watch the trailer for the movie here:






After the movie, Gov. Kasich and Michelle Rhee answered questions from the audience.  The session was broadcast to screenings of the movie across the state.  


Michelle Rhee is a rock star.  Rhee, who is hated by the Left,  looked chic and beautiful in a tangerine dress.  She was featured in the movie as a tough innovator of the D.C. schools who was blocked at every turn by the powerful teachers unions.   Last night she proclaimed proudly that she was a life-long Democrat but insists that school reform and school choice is a bipartisan issue, saying, "I'm agnostic as to the delivery method."  In other words, she doesn't care how or where a child receives an education, as long as it's a good one.    If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this should be it.  


This was the first time I have heard Gov. Kasich speak in person.  He was very likable and passionate about this issue.  I mentioned that there was tension in the room.  When Kasich gave his opening remarks, it was obvious that some lines were designed to elicit applause from the audience.  Nothing.  Dead silence.  I was all ready to clap but got the same feeling I get in our Baptist church when I get the urge.....clap cramp.  It was an interesting group dynamic.  It was as if we sensed the tension, understood the powerful feelings of disagreement bubbling just below the surface, but somehow came to a tacit agreement that we would remain civil and polite. Somehow, "spiking the ball" at a Kasich applause line didn't seem appropriate.  Nor did booing.   While the rabble was roused outside, inside the auditorium it was a good moment for Ohio.  We were all there because we cared about children.


Whether or not you're a fan of Gov. Kasich, you have to give him credit for sticking his neck out and nearly exhausting the audiences' supply of questions.   It was about a 50/50 mix of questions from supporters of school choice and his reforms and from those opposed.  All were civil and polite.  He threw a good number of the questions to Michelle Rhee, who is clearly the expert on the topic.  Kasich stuck to the questions related to Ohio's specific reforms and those related to the union reforms and budget cuts.  He didn't flinch or back down, but stressed that he wanted to hear from teachers and work with them to create a fair way of evaluating them. 


An interesting tidbit that came out of the session was that Rhee convinced Kasich to include the performance pay for teachers in SB5.  He was going to scrap it, but after some heated debates with Rhee, realized it was necessary for true reform.  


At the end, everyone stood and gave Gov. Kasich and Michelle Rhee a round of applause.  I heard people around me, who didn't seem inclined to agree with Kasich on much, expressing their approval for the event and Kasich's demeanor.  I don't think he made any (new) enemies and probably gained a few (perhaps reluctant) supporters.  And if anyone came away from that movie not wanting to fight for school choice,  they are completely heartless.  

April 28, 2011

Illiterate Children Reciting the Koran on Film: The Left Gives a Standing Ovation for Islam | NewsReal Blog:

 "One of our stars is a 10-year-old kid from Tajikistan named Nabiollah, an angelic, big-eyed moppet who can recite the entire Quran from memory in an astonishingly pure boyish soprano, with remarkable command of melody and intonation. He’s like the Justin Bieber of Quran recitation, and judges at the Cairo event seize on him as an amazing gift from Allah. But memorizing the Quran (in Arabic, which he does not otherwise speak or read) at a rural madrassa has nearly been Nabiollah’s entire education; he is functionally illiterate in Tajik, his own language.

How does the Left respond to clear anti-education?  They are a bit uncomfortable, but still manage to rise to their feet and applause this pro-Islam film.  In the conflict of education versus Islamic propaganda – Mohammad wins every time."

Salon.com summarzied the film this way:

It’s “Spellbound” plus a poetry slam. Plus Islamic fundamentalism…but if you’re open to the possibility that Islam in practice is an incredibly diverse spiritual and social movement that embraces 1.6 billion human beings and a lot of internal discussion and disagreement, and that the more we know about it the better, then “Koran by Heart” is a movie you’ve got to see...

...She recounts that at the screening Rifdha and her parents were actually there along with the film’s director.  Afterwards they took questions.  And one person had the guts to ask the father directly if he would be open to letting Rifdha get more education and be a scientist.  The Muslim father responded by saying Rifdha must be a housewife.

Just when Osman and all the Progressives are about to come to their senses about Islam, the director of the film speaks up.  Here’s how Osman ends her article: 

The director quickly took the microphone and spoke some words of wisdom. When we go around the world making films we don’t tell people how to live their lives, he said. Nobody tells us how to live our lives, he added. He graciously thanked the family for coming all the way to New York to attend the opening. Inspiring film. Good point. Lesson learned...

...And there you have it.  It doesn’t matter what the Left believes about education, women, or freedom. The spread of Islam must happen.  We must not fear it or reject any part of it.  We can’t push our values on them, no matter how much the culture of Sharia spreads into our own borders.
Many of the articles on the film screenings reported the movie getting large standing ovations" 

It's tricky being a liberal these days, isn't it?  At least if you're trying to be consistent.

~~~~~

Allen West is Right: Leftist Women Castrate Our Men | NewsReal Blog: (HT: Joel)
Author and blogger Suzanne Venkner, who is the niece of Phyllis Schlafly responded to the following statement by Rep. Allen West:

"We need you to come in and lock shields, and strengthen up the men who are going to the fight for you. To let these other women know on the other side — these planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women that have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness — to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient. That’s what we need you to do. Because if you don’t, then the debt will continue to grow…deficits will continue to grow."

Venker said,

 ...The problem is that too many Americans, women in particular, are afraid to take a stand against feminism. They think being opposed to feminism means being against women’s rights or being throwbacks to a bygone era when women were at home doing nothing else with their lives but caring for children — which, besides being untrue, is not a bad thing anyway. But that is precisely how liberal women want people to think of feminism: as American women’s saviors.
But feminism did not save the women of America. If anything, it ruined them...

...That’s because feminism is about rejecting the timeless institutions that makes most people happy and any good society flourish: marriage and motherhood.
Liberal women don’t explain it this way, of course. They insist they’re not against the traditional family but merely want women to have choices. Hogwash. Not only do feminists subtly and overtly undermine traditional gender roles, they take credit for something they didn’t do. American women’s choices (a.k.a. “progress”) were expanded not from the bra-burning demonstrations that sought to reform society but from a natural evolution that was aided by technology – technology that was invented by men, I might add. American women should be thanking men, not feminists, for the lives they have today. 

Allen West’s argument that liberal women have neutered men was courageous and spot on. It just wasn’t self-explanatory. West would have done well to quote antifeminist warrior Carolyn Graglia when making his argument:

"The traditional family will remain in peril until we derail the feminist engine of reform by killing the sexual revolution, by replacing no-fault divorce laws with laws that protect homemakers and families, by ending preferential treatment of women in education and workplace, and by reforming all laws that discriminate against one-income families through requiring them to subsidize child care for two-income families.

But these things will not happen until a change occurs in those men who have rejected the value of a woman’s traditional role and of a man’s contributions that make this role viable. Without those contributions, what do men think will define their manhood? If women’s traditional role is expendable, then, as increases in the number of well-educated, never-married mothers indicate, so also are men expendable for all purposes other than sperm donor. The result is a society increasingly like Sweden’s, which has the lowest marriage rate and one of the highest illegitimacy rates and employment rates of working-age women in the western world."

The liberal feminists need to be reminded every now and then that the most significant "liberators" of women were not Gloria Steinem or Margaret Sanger, it was the men who invented the electric washing machine, the electric stove, and running water. 


It's rather humorous that "The Donald" is getting so much attention for being a straight-talker and not being afraid to say controversial things.  Of course, half of what he says falls into the realm of reality show fiction and the other half is shameless self promotion.   Meanwhile,  Rep. Allen West is saying actual substantive controversial things, speaking about matters of consequence with intelligence and eloquence.  Let's hope we Americans wise up and demand more of West and less of Trump.

~~~~~

Pornography raid underscores Wi-Fi risks - Technology & science - Wireless - msnbc.com: 

(HT: Challies)

"BUFFALO, N.Y. — Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of 'pedophile!' and 'pornographer!' stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.

That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.

'We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night,' the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, 'Doldrum. 

'No, I didn't,' he insisted. 'Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that.'

'You're a creep ... just admit it,' they said.

Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice:

Password-protect your wireless router."

I happen to be married to a techie who is very fussy about suchs things and I always wondered what the big deal was.   OK....I get it now! Those SWAT team goons would probably confiscate my super-cool Google Chrome CR-48 notebook computer....what a tragedy that would be!  


But seriously, this story does raise some important questions.  Like,  should the internet be free and open to anyone?  Some who were interviewed for the story  and commenting on it thought so and purposely leave their routers open as a courtesy to passersby, hoping others will do the same.   This raises some obvious privacy concerns, although many in the younger generation don't seem to have the same worries their parents do.  I suppose the rise of cloud computing will change this landscape as well.  


The other question is why a heavily armed SWAT team was even needed for this operation.  Could they have just knocked on the door and taken him into custody?  Viewing child pornography, as vile and disgusting as it is, is hardly drug running or gang activity.  What is the likelihood this guy was lying in wait for them with a cache of weapons?  What kind of police state do we live in that an innocent man is subjected to the SWAT team breaking down his door in the middle of the night? 

~~~~~

Do you have questions about Ohio's SB5 and what it means for union members and taxpayers of the state?  The American Policy Roundtable has prepared and excellent guide:

Frequently Asked Questions: Ohio SB5 as passed by the Ohio General Assembly

The guide takes on questions such as:

• What does the collective bargaining process look like under SB5?
• Will repealing the salary schedules put teachers with higher salary at risk for losing their jobs?
• Will tenured teachers (continuing contracts) lose their tenure?
• What does it mean to base salaries or wages on performance? 
• If public employees can't negotiate for their health care benefits, won't their health coverage be much worse? 

APR has done Ohioans (regardless of which side you're on) a huge service in preparing this detailed FAQ that cuts through the spin.  I hope it makes it into the hands of every Ohio voter as the rhetoric continues and opponents of SB5 prepare to wage a well-funded campaign in their attempt to repeal it.