The passage of the Fairness in Negotiations Act by the 2010 Maryland General Assembly will bring significant changes to public school labor negotiations in Maryland. Is the new law a “big win” or “openly hostile to education”? That depends on whom you ask.
In brief, the 24-page Fairness in Negotiations Act creates a state-wide Public School Labor Relations Board (PSLRB) with the power to decide labor disputes between local school boards and the unions representing local school employees. Disagreements involving salaries, benefits, and working conditions will be settled under the authority of the new PSLRB and final awards will be binding on both sides. Previously, such labor disputes were settled by the Maryland State Board of Education, and decisions were not binding on either party.
The PSLRB will also decide whether topics proposed for negotiation are mandatory (negotiable upon request), permissive (negotiable upon agreement by both parties), or illegal. In deciding topics for potential negotiation, the PSLRB is required to balance the impact on the school system as a whole, against the impact on employees. The new law also sets a timeline for resolving labor disputes and includes the procedures for transfers and reassignments as a mandatory negotiating topic.
Binding Arbitration Process
When negotiations reach an impasse, a third-party mediator will review the last and best offers from each side, and issue a settlement that the parties can accept in full or in part. If disputes remain, either party can request arbitration through the PSLRB.
The PSLRB determines the binding award among three options; the final offer from the local school board; the final offer from the local union; or the final settlement previously offered by the mediator. In the process, the language of the law calls for the PSLRB to convene a hearing to assess the ability of both local government and the local school board to fund the final offers, “considering their existing resources.” Also a factor: wages, benefits and working conditions in comparable, surrounding jurisdictions, both within Maryland and out-of-state.
While the PSLRB replaces the Maryland State Board of Education in hearing labor disputes, prior decisions or opinions issued by the State Board are not binding on the new PSLRB. The law sunsets in five years.
Contradiction in Terms?
The five-member Public School Labor Relations Board will be made up of two members chosen from a list provided by public school labor organizations. Two more members will come from a list provided by the Maryland Association of Boards of Education and the State Superintendents Association of Maryland. The fifth member is expected to be independent; to represent the public; and to have experience in labor relations.
Terms on the PSLRB are supposed to be for 5 years, but there is a seemingly contradictory provision in the law that staggers the expiration dates of the terms so that one member’s term expires in 2012, two members in 2013 and two members in 2014. The timing may be important in an election year, because the Governor appoints all five PSLRB members, with the advice and consent of the Maryland Senate.
Stakeholders React
“This is a big win for MSEA, our members and students,” said Clara Floyd, president of the Maryland State Education Association, the state’s largest union representing public school employees. “Whenever we work more closely with our education partners, our students reap the benefits.” Floyd was quoted on the MSEA Web site.
Diana Sequella, manager of governmental relations for MSEA told The Dagger that passage of the bill was the result of a twenty-year effort.
More from the MSEA Web site:
“This legislation…requires a labor board to balance the interests and welfare of the public against the interests of the employees; preserves the fiscal relationship between the county and the local school board; establishes a timeline for the negotiations between local board of education and the local K-12 employee association to be completed; addresses concerns raised by the Maryland Association of Counties, Maryland Association of Boards of Education, Public School Superintendents Association of Maryland, and Maryland Negotiation Service; establishes a process for a neutral third party to resolve differences between two parties, which adds a strong incentive for both sides to come to agreement early; makes procedures for assignments and transfers for teachers subjects for bargaining; has no fiscal impact to the state.”
The Maryland Association of Boards of Education doesn’t share the enthusiasm.
During the legislative session, MABE dubbed the bill the “Unfairness in Negotiations Act”, because the state PSLRB would override local authority in making budgetary, program and policy decisions.
MABE also predicted that binding awards would force school boards to make cuts elsewhere in their budgets or look for additional local funding; and that the bill would cost local school systems millions in teachers’ raises and thousands in arbitration and court costs, as unions try to overturn precedent on what are illegal, permissive and mandatory subjects of bargaining.
Now that the bill is law, John Wollums, director of governmental relations for the Maryland Association of Boards of Education told The Dagger “We still believe it’s entirely unnecessary.”
Wollums cited Maryland’s top ranking by Education Week, highly paid teachers, and a process for resolving labor disputes that was overseen for the past 40 years by the Maryland State Board of Education.
Regarding passage of the bill, Woolums said “It’s a testament to how much clout the unions have in an election year.”
But he also said that the full ramifications are unknown. “No one wants an unworkable award.” he said, adding that he was hopeful that good faith bargaining would limit the negative effects.
Harford County School Board Member John Smilko was less sanguine: “This [law] is openly hostile to education.” He said that with labor costs being 83% of Harford County Public Schools’ operating budget, binding awards such as teacher raises, could force cuts to programs, layoffs for staff, and increases to class size. He said that when the State Board of Education made labor decisions, they considered what was best for education, but the PSLRB will consider “what’s best for labor.” And Smilko predicted that public school unions throughout the state will go after any available funds “Any free penny that’s left over, they’re going to want.”
Local government officials will be affected too, Smilko said. While PSLRB cannot compel local governments to fund binding awards, Smilko predicted that the funding authorities, upon which school boards depend, will be under political pressure to pay for awards mandated by the PSLRB, “The gun is still to their head.”
In contrast, Randy Cerveny, president of the Harford County Education Association told The Dagger, “The funding issue doesn’t change. If the school system or the county doesn’t have the money, then it’s a moot point.” Regarding the potential for the school board to have to shift funds to pay for a binding award, Cerveny said that it might be more appropriate to spend money on salaries and benefits than on technologies or programs that don’t necessarily improve instruction.
Cerveny said the Fairness in Negotiations Act will bring an independent board to settle labor disputes, which he contrasted with past decisions favoring local school boards made by the State Board of Education. He doesn’t think the number of challenges to school board decisions will necessarily increase, noting that HCEA has rarely gone to impasse in the past ten years.
But he foreshadowed one local issue that the PSLRB might resolve.
Cerveny said a recurring concern has been the time teachers spend entering data on “edline” – an online service that provides students and parents with grade updates between report cards. If the PSLRB determined that inputting data on edline is a working condition, and therefore a mandatory negotiating topic, the issue could become part of labor negotiations. Regarding the law overall, Cerveny said “It forces a discussion at the negotiating table.”
The Fairness in Negotiations Act takes effect on July 1, 2010.
Thanks for the objective outlook Mr Smilko. Maybe you just don’t want to answer for some of the actions you and your fellow board members have made. Luke a hidden salary cut, trying to make teachers work over the summer without pay, and now adding a half a million dollars of ‘management’ paid for by raising heathcare payments and butchering the benifits to the point that the plan is not worth having. Maybe it is time to really look at the Taj Mahal in bel Air when you talk about that 83%.
As for the lack of impasses, maybe that is because HCEA has folded on almost every issue like a house of cards in a tornado. God, please stop calling it a union!!!
It’s high time the teachers stand up and stop taking this stuff from the Good ol boy network, and let their feet do the talking AND get an oranization that will actually go out and fight for us istead of taking our money and saying “we’ll try…”
I agree. Mr. Smilko, who is an appointee of Ehrlich, is also against the ACLU. I would not expect him to be fair to working people or education.
Only someone of your twisted mindset would associate being against the ACLU with automatically being unfair to “working people or education” (whatever that excessively vague phrase means).
Do I understand that now the idea is; if you’re against the ACLU you are automatically against working people or education? You are one really sick puppy tax guy.
No Phil and DY: being an appointee of Ehrlich would associate him with being against working people and education. Being against the ACLU exposes him as against fairness in the workplace and society in my mind. Sorry for the confusion. I should know by now you both are easily distracted.
Oh but I’m not the least distracted. I just enjoy pointing out the absolute ridiculousness of your comments. Being against the ACLU is in no way being against the fairness in the workplace or anything else. It is to be against the extreme positions of the ACLU.
DY: What extreme positions? If you look at their page it states: “The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defends legal cases involving the violations of civil liberties. It is a staunch supporter of the rights laid out in the Constitution and its amendments.”
Are you against civil liberties or the Constantution? Just kidding:)
And we should all believe it because it is on their page.
So, are they going to help states defend their rights as stated in the Tenth Amendment?
Hahahahahaha! When pigs fly!
Phil: What rights are you referring to? “…powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.”
teachers are nothing but leaches on the public dole. work for 9 months and get paid a yearly wage, not bad. free health care, paid schooling/training and stay home when school closes for a threat of snow.
They obviously failed with you.
first off it is a 10 month contract and they only get paid for the 10 months they work not the whole year. The benefits are not free they have to pay for them, although not all of it like most jobs; but unlike most jobs they pay taxes on the portion that the employer covers. It is called the state pick-up!
That said I see how this can be a good thing but also how it can create problems. It gives the teachers association (not union) a leg of legitimancy, as long as it is not abused it is fine.
Teachers get paid a yearly salary that can be distributed in 10 months. What is your point? It is still comparable to a yearly wage for anyone else. I also believe that teachers can have the pay distributed in all ten or twelve months.
To everyone else- Sorry for my spelling. I do appreciate the fact that you teachers out there know about spelling. Why don’t you try learning about shrinking budgets, high taxes and unrestricted spending that gives the taxpayer a worse product year in and year out.
no teachers get paid a salary for the 190 days they work. It is not a year round pay like you mentioned. Harford County does not offer a 12 month pay option. The Credit Union does offer to talk your money and put it in savings for you and redistribute it to your checking account. Even if the county did that it would simply be deffering compensation for the 190 days. Most teachers get a job on the side and that is fine but be honest if you had to put a value on your k-12 education what would you put it at?
First year teachers get paid about $40,000 to work for 190 days and you guys complain? I know many people with BA degrees and some with MA degrees that don’t get paid as much in a year’s worth of work nor do they have “Cadillac” health care plans, state pensions or subsidized tuition assistance to further their education.
All that on top of nearly guaranteed Cola’s and merit increases most years during their careers.
No Colas or steps in the last 2 years! Insurance is getting worse and they pay taxes on the state portion of the retirement. Do you pay taxes on your employer contributions? What job with a masters do you make less then 40K?
$40 g’s for 190 days!!!. A five year teacher with an MA can get over $65,000 and teachers that end up moving up to administration can make $80 to $100 g’s per year for 190 days worth of work? If you guys have it so bad, why don’t you quit?
Cisco…I wish 5 year teachers with an MA got paid that much…my wife is a department chair, has her MA +30, and more than double that experience, and doesn’t get paid that much. We’d be much better off if 5 year teachers were making that kind of money.
cisco my wife has her masters and 11 years of experience and makes 61 K due to step freezes etc. Furthermore administrators work more then 190 days. This July go up to your school you will see them there! No one is saying the job isn’t rewarding but understand that as things existed before they lacked many of the protections in labor that you enjoy such as a meaningful seat at the contract bargining table. This is designed to fix that.
8 years of teaching, Department Chair, Masters degree, coach 2 sports, total income last year: 52,500. What county can I make 65,000 in for 190 days? I need to get my application in.
How many people do you know with TWO masters degrees who only get paid 60K?
Here’s a math problem: If a teacher makes $60,000 working 190 days how much would they make if they worked 260 days? Answer: $82,100. Which is about what someone with a Master’s degree makes working a whole year. Let’s compare apples and apples here.
so if we had year round school you would support paying teachers 85K? with a masters?
This notion that teachers work only 180 days is obnoxious crap. I work damn hard at my job, and believe me if you count the hours I teach, grade, plan, and study content I work DAMN near the same time a year-round full time worker. That combined with the mental drain of effective teaching adds up to a full-time year round job. Anybody who would tell you that teachers do not work a full time year-round job is clearly not a teacher, and has no damn clue how hard teachers in Harford County are working.
Teaching is a great gig with terrific benefits, awesome schedule, tenure and the ability to have secondary incomes which is difficult to have in the private sector. And not to mention recession resistant.
Cisco, first off it is “leeches” not “leaches”. Secondly, they do only get paid for 10 months, contrary to what many think. Yes, the school system does close at any chance of snow it seems, but “snow days” are not considered a paid day for teachers. Teachers are hired to work 190 days. Also, the health care plans, while it is awesome (as a former teacher, I can attest to that), it is not free, nor is the graduate schooling free. There was some reimbursement for courses I took, but it was after I had paid for it and received a satisfactory grade. Certainly, teachers are fortunate to have wonderful health care plans and summers off (if they’re lucky – many do still work or take courses during their “time off”), but to suggest that they are leeches is ridiculous!
cisco – I don’t even know where to begin. Your words are so hate filled and so untrue they do not even deserve a response. Are you honestly saying that your life was not positively affected by one teacher? Your children were never taught by a wonderful teacher? You were never treated by a doctor that received positive influence because of the teachers in her life?
kim- “hate filled and untrue” I think you should learn about fair criticism and not take it quite so personally.
You didn’t answer her questions!
Cisco, teachers only get paid for 10 months. July and August they don’t get a paycheck and whatever days they do work over the summer (and yes, they do work over the summer) they don’t actually get paid until sometime after the next school year starts (in my wife’s case she didn’t get that money until well into October…for days she worked in July.)
Their health care, while very good, is not free.
They don’t get schooling for free. In some cases, they can get reimbursed for graduate classes (assuming they earn an acceptable grade, which makes sense…no reason to pay for a teacher to fail or barely pass a class), but there is a cap to how many credits they get reimbursed for and once that cap is reached no more reimbursement. Yes, there are some training classes that they can go to for free, but they aren’t that common. That’s not any different than any other profession. Even McDonald’s and other similar jobs pay for training for their employees.
Finally, maybe you should’ve paid attention in school and learned how to spell and use something resembling proper punctuation.
cisco, go to school, get a college education and a masters degree….and then tell teachers how great they got it.
I bet that the county could fill most teaching positons with no problem even if your salaries were cut 5%. In this economy many have taken cuts in pay or have gone with no pay for 5 days in the county and your fellow state workers are taking 12 unpaid days off. You guys leech the system.
cisco that is already proven untrue. You see Special Educators and math and science teachers are all at a premium finding highly qualified candidates is not always possible since many of them can command higher salaries. To give you an idea in 2000 (I know it is dated but follow me) of the 25 colleges in WV with schools of education only 2 students majored in Secondary Science education that graduated that year. That was before they increased the credit requirement for high school. That means the supply of science teachers was not keeping up with demand. I know that one of them did not work in WV after graduation.
Taxpayer-You always want to put everything into your own good guys/bad guys argument. Every current member of the board has been appointed or REappointed by the Mr. O’Malley. A for the ACLU, everyone should be a fan of a group that supports the rifts of the KKK, Ayran Nation, Etc.
Cisco-ge a clue and some facts. Your comments arn’t worth a response.
What everyone needs to be aware that the BOE AND King Tomback the first are breaking the law and the contract that they dictated and mistrating the teachers that make them look so good!
Harford Guy: All people deserve the same rights. Not just the ones you like. It was Voltaire who said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The ACLU defends everyone’s rights and, I say, thank God for them. I am proud to be a card carrying member.
US Taxpayer
Don’t preach to me. I spent 8 years in uniform doing what Voltaire only talked about, like a lot of people who like to quote about rights and have never done an actual thing to protect them other than talk.
My point was not that they don’t have the right, but I would be proud to be associated with them. As my grandfather said “If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas…”
Wow Hartford guy….you’re Benjamin Franklin’s Grandson?!?! Awesome!
So US Taxpayer,
can I expect the ACLU’s support to fight Maryland’s restrictive conceal carry permit laws?
Doubtful…it doesn’t fit within their extremely liberal political agenda
Harford Guy: Is carrying a concealed weapon a civil right? They are concerned with the civil rights of all people. I don’t think carrying weapons fall into that right.
As far as I am concerned only law enforcement officers should be able to carry weapons. Since I have two in law enforcement, I have a vested interest in keeping nut cases from having weapons. Remember the Virginia Tech mass murders? The murderer legally bought the weapons that murdered so many kids. He also was mentally ill. The NRA thinks terrorists should be able to buy weapons.
I have to agree with you that no one should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. The problem is that the word criminal describes one who disregards laws – so they won’t actually stop. When I was in the Philippines, whenever I went to the mall my car was stopped at a check point and they checked under the car and in the trunk. Then, when I entered the mall I was patted down and all bags were checked. You know what? I felt safer there than I do here. Of course the ACLU would have conniptions if anyone tried that here but when I go to White Marsh I don’t know which punk I see is carrying. I remember VT and I have to wonder why with the money parents pay for such a school their kids aren’t protected. Why isn’t there a couple armed security guards at every building? This guy should have been dropped as soon as he started shooting. – Oh, yeah right we needed that money for useless sports. Once again, every school in the Philippines had a guard and the gates were closed to outsiders during classes. Meanwhile, the judicial process in America is a joke. Repeat offenders are sent through the revolving door system to be released again and again to go forth and sin once more. How about making judges accountable? Better yet, how about making probation officials accountable? Sorry, you released Johnny Ne’erdowell and he murdered someone… you loose your job.
fedup –
I think I’ve met Johnny Ne’erdowell’s cousin Jimmy ForeverOnTheDole who collects government assistance while engaging in criminal endeavors.
Joe
The constitution states that yes, it is my right to keep and bear arms, concealed or open, and that right shall not be infringed. Now, your gonna start with the “well regulated militia”, stuff and imply that it doesn’t mean individual rights. I couldn’t mean anything else, other than an individuals right since everyone carried back then.
The police….. be serious. Order a pizza and call 911 and see who gets there first. A cop can stand right beside you while someone shoots you down, and your family could not sue, because the police have no constitutional obligation to protect you. Your defense, and your families, is in your own hands. Making more gun laws means there are more laws for criminals to break. A law abiding citizen has the same argument as the police do, I should be as well armed as someone who breaks the law.
Some people like the idea of being protected by another person or agency, but it’s an illusion. Cops cannot be everywhere at all times and the criminals know this. Fighting for survival is a basic human instinct and cannot be legislated away. I will fight and I will be as armed as any threat I might come into contact with. Why shouldn’t I, as a law abiding citizen, carry a gun to the mall when there are many criminals who don’t blink at doing that.
40 states have concealed carry laws, with MD being a “may issue” state, meaning, you can get a permit to protect money, but not your child.
John,
please re-read the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. There is no mention of concealed carrying of firearms as a right. The concealed carry permit matter is a privilige, not a right. FYI, all 50 states have concealed carry laws, and the states may regulate the issuance of permits as they see fit. There is no national concealed firearms carry permit. Furthermore, the federal gov’t and states may impose restrictions on who is prohibited from possessing firearms. Reference Title 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and state laws.
Question: Do you want any convicted felon to posses a firearm? If so, please explain why.
I do not know you, however, you seem very angry, and in fact, paranoid with respect to your views on police and protection. I hope you are joking in what you wrote, otherwise, I fear for your family and neighbors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://masscases.com/cases/app/44/44massappct715.html
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/15330073/detail.html
Your imaginary feeling of safety that you feel from whatever police force you rely on, has been fostered by the press and special interest groups. Very, very bad things can happen to you or your family(see Warren above)and the police cant be held liable if they fail to protect you. As for me being prepared by owning weapons, I’ll continue to do that because you basically, cannot support any of your assertations with the smallest amount of fact. Since you choose to say that the second amendment does not apply to concealed carry, I’m inclined to agree with you after some consideration. Open carry should be allowed, with minimal exceptions. Vermont and Alaska already interpet the 2nd amendment as stating just that.
Yes it is, according to the law. Who is being selective about the Constitution now? But then again, Jefferson was a crackpot wasn’t he? You are all for defending the rights you believe in, but not the one you don’t.
Don’t even try that NRA argument, they can be as wacky as the ACLU. But I’d really like you to show me where they say that they think terrorists should be able to get weapons. But why let facts get in the way, right?
As for VA Tech, yes let’s blame the guns instead of the system that allows the dangerously mentally disturbed, or even just plain old violent criminals loose in our society unsupervised.
Here Harford Guy: “A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that individuals on the federal terrorist watch list were able to purchase firearms and explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times…Moreover, the NRA strongly objects to closing the “terror gap,” calling legislation dealing with the issue “21st Century McCarthyism.” Bloomberg is “abusing the word ‘terrorist’ to resurrect and pursue a gun-control agenda,” an NRA spokesperson said.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/15/nra-terrorist-list/
“People who are on the federal government’s terrorist watch list can’t fly on airplanes. But they can buy guns. Why? Because the National Rifle Association says denying them the right to buy guns is a denial of their Second Amendment rights.”
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/opinionzone/2010/05/11/nra-allow-terrorism-watch-list-suspects-to-buy-firearms/
“The Bush administration urged Congress to pass a law barring people on the terrorist watch list from buying explosives and guns. The gun lobby objected. Now the Obama administration is urging Congress to pass the same legislation, and the gun lobby continues to object.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050505211.html
As for Va Tech, I agree with you. I do NOT blame the guns, I blame the NRA who fights any kind of regulations on owning any type of weapon no matter how crazy the citizen may be.
This is my answer to Harford Guy without the links that Daggar blocks:
“A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that individuals on the federal terrorist watch list were able to purchase firearms and explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times…Moreover, the NRA strongly objects to closing the “terror gap,” calling legislation dealing with the issue “21st Century McCarthyism.” Bloomberg is “abusing the word ‘terrorist’ to resurrect and pursue a gun-control agenda,” an NRA spokesperson said.”
“People who are on the federal government’s terrorist watch list can’t fly on airplanes. But they can buy guns. Why? Because the National Rifle Association says denying them the right to buy guns is a denial of their Second Amendment rights.”
“The Bush administration urged Congress to pass a law barring people on the terrorist watch list from buying explosives and guns. The gun lobby objected. Now the Obama administration is urging Congress to pass the same legislation, and the gun lobby continues to object.”
As for Va Tech, I agree with you. I do NOT blame the guns, I blame the NRA who fights any kind of regulations on owning any type of weapon no matter how crazy the citizen may be.
How did you let this thread digress?
Carrying a concealed weapon is NOT a “civil right.” This is a privilege that may be restricted or refused by any state or territory you reside in. There are no national concealed carry permits. These permits are issued by each state which has its own restrictions. If you are thinking of the 2nd Amendment, please read it as it discusses the right to bear arms. This right to bear arms as we know, prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearm, such as felons, those who renounce citizenship, are under indictment, etc…
If only you listened to the teachers.
This is an interesting point- and exactly what the Supreme Court is going to rule on in the McDonell Case currently before it.
We will see if the 2nd amendment is on the same tier of rights as the 1st amendment. If it is, prepare for liberalization of handgun licensing.
I think you may be misunderstanding the “McDonald Case” (not McDonell) that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The challenge has nothing to do with concealed carrying of firearms. Rather, the argument is all about local jurisdictions such as the City of Chicago, which for nearly 30 years, has banned possession of handguns and automatic weapons inside city limits.
McDonald’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court comes a year and a half after the Court stunned gun-control advocates in another case (Heller), declaring for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun in his or her home.
This case is about how citizens are unhappy with local authorities preventing citizens from possessing firearms in that particular municipality. Nothing to do with concealed carry permits which is a totally separate matter. Refer to Title 18 U.S.C. 922(g) for a list of all federal prohibitors to firearms ownership,then check your state laws depending on where you reside. Its still hard to believe that in Maryland, there are still no state laws preventing felons from owning rifles or shotguns. However, under federal law, no felons may possess firearms or ammunition. So, if you have a felony, you are not legally allowed to hunt, unless you use a bow or a black powder rifle.
only in the united states to we EXPECT teachers to fork over THEIR OWN HARD EARNED SALARIES to pay for SCHOOL SUPPLIES and then offer them a less than 10% in return in the form of a “tax incentive” or “tax provision” …
wow… that’s a cute trick… continue to cut school operating budgets, and then make our teachers fund it themselves.
go figure.
let’s face it … the ONLY reason MARYLAND has the highest percentage of private schools and percentage of their children attending private schools is because they have a relatively flat state income tax… approximately 6.8% and we don’t make it more progressive for incomes above $250,000 a year.
Maryland should jam it up the a_s especially for those making more than $500,000 per year, because it wouldn’t harm any parent sending their kids to public school. In fact, it would actually help them.
But voting age citizens are too stupid to realize that taxes on the “rich” actually benefit the “average” earning less than $70,000 per year — and there are way more voting age citizens earning less than $70,000 per year… so if they demanded tax INCREASES on those earning more than $250K, $500K, or more… they could actually gain some ground and have a better education system.
Instead they are convinced that gambling, which takes money out of the pockets of more citizens in that “less than $70K per year” bracket to help fund football and baseball stadiums that they are too poor to buy tickets for…and benefit only the very same “rich” folk who buy season tickets and club level suites.
Teabaggers… run the numbers, do the math you were supposed to have learned in high school. Your teachers need your support.
That’s right. You go, frank! Punish those damn rich people for working hard and being successful! Don’t allow folks to gamble because poor people are stupid and will spend moeny they can’t afford! Call those with opinions that differ from yours names that refer to explict sexual acts!
I wish I could be as smart as frank. Maybe someday I’ll fall and bang my head really hard and it will happen!
the attitude you express reminds me of someone in that less than $70k per year category… and is too dumb to realize that a progressive tax rate can truly help you ..
it has NOTHING to do with punishing hard work and success.. folks don’t realize that as personal income rises… so does their utilization of public services
sure i make no bones about taxing the hell out of rich folk… cuz it means that i pay less…
it’s called rational self-interest…
Frank, No it’s called being selfish. Do you always vote for what is better for you personally? I vote for what is better for our country or our county. The healthier the society, the better off EVERYONE is. But we have way too many selfish people who are happy to bankrupt our country just to gain extra for themselves.
First off, gambling is a choice and we live in a free society. Some people enjoy gambling as entertainment. The next time you sit down to play a game of Monopoly do your neighbors have the right to stop you? I mean, you had to buy the game, right. What if they don’t think you should be spending your money on that?
You obviously believe in redistribution of wealth. Right now only about half of US citizens pay taxes. Once more people don’t pay taxes than do, you do realize what is going to happen? Those people will vote in politicians who will raise and raise and raise taxes. Why not, they, like you, are only voting for what is in their own best interest? Once people are paying 75% or 80% of their income in taxes they will quit working. Why bother? Then what do you think will happen? Did you really vote for your own best interest?
hey phil… low income folks don’t have a freaking pot to piss in… why not put the gambling casinos in annapolis… where all the folks with money are… it makes more sense to put the casinos where the wealth is… have more opportunities for snagging some real money… not just some poor guy/woman throwing their last few quarters of pocket change hoping to make enough to buy a meal at mcdonalds…
if you’re gonna go for the gold… put the enterprise where you can snag the biggest bang for the buck… don’t go after the chump change.
Terrific Frank. Let’s adopt policy of “Penalize the Productive to Support the Parasitic.”
productive… yea right… parasitic.. that’s a good one too… according to your definition you can call all government contractors parasitic then, because according to you they leech off earnings by taxpayers like yourself and your neighbors.
Count the number of people in the 0 to 70,000 a year bracket, then count the number or 70,000 + and you’ll get an idea of why no state can tax their way into prosperity. Maryland lost one third of their millionaires last year, either from losing money or leaving.
show some real data… don’t just pull that stuff out of your butt…
Frank, if you’d like to see some data, perhaps something from the Wall Street Journal is a worthy enough source. Go to Google and put in WSJ “millionaires go missing” and an article will pop right up that gives you the data you long for.
yea and i bet you never read the book either.
How many people are in each bracket and how many millionaires did we lose?
I don’t see anything from the NRA. I do see sources of questionable objectivity which helps your straw man arguement buy provides no validity. Instead of doing your own investigating of the facts to establish your own opinion you are happy to have your opinion given to you. Therefore it makes it impossable to have a relavemt discussion, so it will end here.
I encourage those concerned about the actions of those in power who have no accoutability show up at Monday’s BOE meeting and support the teachers of Harford County.
Harford Guy: From the NRA
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=263&issue=018
You can call all sources “questionable objectivity” but tha facts are the same. The NRA wants to allow terrorists to buy weapons.
US Taxpayer = Socialist Govertment Employee = US Federal Government = Lots of Real Tax Payer Money = Little Results
Simple enough for you to understand US Taxpayer.
US Taxpayer –
Actually upon reading the NRA legislative position
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=263&issue=018 it seems like they have reasonable concerns to me and in no way do they support terrorists buying guns.
Joe
Joe: The NRA would allow people on the FBI watchlist as defined on their page: “As the name suggests, the “watchlist” is not limited to people guilty of “terrorism” or who are suspected of other acts serious enough to warrant their arrest. It broadly includes people “known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,”
Why would you be in favor of people “known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,” to be able to buy weapons?
Obviously you do not have loved ones whose lives are on the line protecting from people “known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,” Well I do and I do NOT want them to buy guns nor do I want Mexican drug lords to be able to buy guns. Or is that something else you approve of?
US Taxpayer –
I have active and retired family in law enforcement. Again, the NRA has legitimate concerns http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=263&issue=018.
I find it quite curious you can on the one hand rail against a clearly written law like SB1070 and on the other hand support gun laws that would violate people’s Constitutional Rights.
Joe
Joe:
To be fair I will admit to a change to my understanding to this law (that I still do not support.) Having spoken to a friend of my son’s whom is also in law enforcement, it was explain that his understanding of this law is that a police officer can only look into the immigration status of a person only after he has been arrested for another offense. The police may not inquire into immigration as a primary reason for a stop.
Even if the law specifically allows police to only allow checks for citizenship after a stop for a crime, the practice can quickly degenerate to race baiting. What the police can do, and what has been done in Phoenix by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is “Stopping and arresting individuals in the middle of a block, for littering, for honking their horn too loud, for having broken tail lights, for riding a bike at night without a light, one case for driving in a car with the tread of a tire too low — pretenses to stop individuals who then have to prove that they’re here legally.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23deavere-smith.html?ref=opinion
I think that the chance of this law being used as voter laws were in the South is too great. That is why I am opposed to it.
I am referring to the Arizona law.
So… all of your misconception would have been avoided had you listened to Fox over the last few weeks – where they’ve been explaining the law without any hyperbole or high indignation to misrepresent the law to fit their agenda.
Fedup: they explained the Gestapo tactics taking place in Phoenix by the Sheriff? You don’t think that this law can be abused?
Gestapo… really? They’re shooting them and putting them in mass graves? That would be horrible if true… maybe we should be careful using such terms…
Fedup: Are you saying the tactics of Sheriff Arpaio are worthy of our great country? His tactics are the same as the Gestapo’s even if the victume do not end up is the bottem of a hole.
Taxpayer… last I looked Sheriff’s are voted in… and out. The good citizens of his county will decide how they feel about his “Gestapo” tactics. I’ve done no research and I don’t know who he is – or care. On the flip side, do you think the inaction of ICE and the federal government is worthy of our great nation? Do you think the childish refusal of ICE to do the job they’re tasked to do is worthy of this great nation? It doesn’t take any action by congress to enforce the border. Is leaving the border open for drug cartels and other criminals to cross over and murder innocent civilians worthy of this great nation? Is practicing racism by allowing Phoenix to become the kidnap capitol of the US – and ignore it because they’re all illegals doing it to each other worthy of this great nation? Is an activist school administrator using kids on a basketball team as a tool to push their agenda worthy of this great nation? This whole thing a horrible political farce. Bullsh*t politics. Dirty politicians (which of course is ALL of them) and their corrupt businessmen partners. This whole mess is traceable straight back to the presidents who have allowed it to continue… and it won’t stop now because they like it this way… so what if a few innocents get killed in Arizona… just look at all the votes I’ll get… after all, it’s not here where it’d be important like when those kooks were sniping the good folks of the DC suburbs. Then it was “pull out all the stops”… cops at schools, airplanes searching for gun retorts… whatever it takes… What is the federal government doing for Arizona? It’s Bullsh*t.
Fedup: I agree with you about the violence in Arizona. It is terrible. But we do not agree on the mode of correction. Many people want to deal with the symptoms of this plague (the violence and crime), while I am concerned with the causes. And I will emphasize again that much of the violence is Arizona’s fault for selling weapons to these drug lords. Until they do something about that, as well as employers that hire illegals, then the violence will not abate.
I don’t care if the sheriff is voted in or not, he must not do what this Sheriff Arpaio is doing. When he makes a mockery of civil rights for one group, he diminishes all our civil rights. If he can get away with it there, someone else can get away with it here. You should care who he is and what he is doing. This is why I belong to the ACLU, a group who follows this philosophy and defends everyone’s civil rights, even sleazebags like the KKK. Remember Voltaire!
You, and others, have referred to the ICE not doing its job, “Is leaving the border open for drug cartels and other criminals to cross over and murder innocent civilians worthy of this great nation?” Why would you say they are not doing their job? It is one thing to be chronically under staffed and not being able to do their job, another to purposely refusing to do their job. I can’t believe the ICE is just sitting on their hands.
I know for fact that ICE isn’t doing it’s job – yes they’re under staffed but when law enforcement hands you 10 illegals you don’t say “turn ’em loose”. I know for fact that every president in I don’t know how long has not done the job of securing the border. I know for fact that if you’re here illegally you should be packed up and sent home. I know for fact it’s patently unfair to allow illegals from Mexico to stay here and enjoy the benefits of being here just because of an accident of geography. I say lets populate the south west with 3 or 4 million illegal Filipinos… they work just as hard, most are devout Catholic and they speak English. If people are so frustrated and fed up with the current situation that they approve of this sheriff, it should be a sign to DC that something must be done before this becomes a serious powder keg. In a previous post I predicted ICE would sit on their hands and I stand by it. They’re being order to by dirtbag politicians.
I wish we had a couple hundred more Sheriff Joe Arpaios. The only reason I could see for people to oppose him is if they don’t want the laws enforced equally to everyone. I guess for some folks, the simple concept that ‘Illegal is illegal’ is a little too advanced for them to handle.
fedup: That Sheriff Joe Arpaio was elected may be so, however so was Hitler. I know that you do not approve of what he did, yet the Germans that elected him also felt the government was not doing its job. They also were “frustrated and fed up with the current situation” and with inflation that rose to a point where it literally took a wheel barrel of money to buy o loaf of bread. But look what happen, they made a pack with the devil. Arpaio is one of those devils and you do not want him to be in charge of your liberty.
You keep saying that you know for a fact that ICE is not doing its job. But how do you know? If the government had not done anything about securing our borders, perhaps that had something to do with big business lobbyists who wanted the cheap labor. I believe that is still the case.
Phil: This is more complicated than your simplistic “illegal is illegal” response. That is what may be “little too advanced for them (you) to handle.” You sound like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men.” This represents a profound problem for this country. We need the labor but we need secure borders too. We need immigration reform.
US –
There is no equivalency between Hitler and Arpaio and should be ashamed for making the analogy.
However it is analogous to compare National Socialist Party of the early twentieth century with liberals/progressives.
http://rightwingnews.com/2010/02/the-best-quotes-from-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism/
Joe
U.S. Taxpayer…you’re a nut. You constantly make comparisons between the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department/Sheriff Arpaio and the Nazis/Hitler.
Get a grip. I haven absolutely no problem with people immigrating here from other countries, but god damnit, they need to do it legally. If your first act of coming here is to do it illegally then get the hell out and don’t come back.
If you’re so willing to welcome illegal immigrants into this country then why don’t you open up your home and let a few stay with your family.
Henry: Let’s look at what I said. It was stated by fedup that Arpaio was elected and implied that his actions had the approval of the population as they were so frustrated with their current government. I pointed out that Hitler was also elected under similar circumstances. Bad things happen because of his election and the compliance of the population. I see a correlation here. Remember, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana
Where did I state that I welcomed illegal immigrants? I have always said we need immigration reform; that is not the same thing as welcoming illegals. In fact I stated: “We need the labor but we need secure borders too. We need immigration reform.” So I say to you, “get a grip.” Don’t put words in my mouth and then attack me for them. And don’t go off half cocked as Joe is wont to do. Moreover, just because I see parallels between Arpaio’s tactics and the Brown Shirts’ tactics does not make Arpaio a Nazie. However, what Arpaio is doing should give anyone pause who claims to support and love the Constitution.
US
Actually you again are comparing Arpaio to a Nazi and now a Brown Shirt.
You should be ashamed.
Joe
U.S. Taxpayer,
While I admittedly haven’t bothered to follow this entire discussion all that closely, every post of yours I see mentioning Sheriff Arpaio, Maricopa County (well, you usually say Phoenix, but it’s essentially the same thing), etc you also mention Hitler, the Nazis, Brown Shirts, etc in the same sentence. You are indeed equating Sheriff Arpaio to Hitler and the Nazis. If you weren’t then why bring them up every time?
What Sheriff Arpaio is doing is trying to secure the border, at least for his county…a job that the federal government has absolutely failed to do for decades and is one reason there are so many problems in that area and across the country.
Taxpayer: sorry for the hiatus… You stated:
;You keep saying that you know for a fact that ICE ;is not doing its job. But how do you know?
Putting aside the obvious evidence – millions of illegals running around the country – my brother was told to turn 10 illegals loose in the middle of nowhere (after they had freely admitted to being illegal and their van was towed away) because after more than an hour ICE finally decided they didn’t want them… I don’t know about you, but I doubt that was an isolated incident. How does this NOT qualify as ignoring their responsibilities? Ten wasn’t enough to bother with? As far as the Sheriff, I don’t know anything about him… if he’s acted outside the law – and not based on some hyped up lefty media coverage – the federal authorities will descend on him… provided of course one Sheriff is enough to bother with…
Fedup: So you have taken this one example and extrapolated it for the 19,000 agents in that agency? I think that is a little unfair. Below is some information from their web site. It contains a little hyperbole, but shows a wide-ranging mission.
As far as the millions running around this country, blame the employer who hires them. There is no outrage over this exploitation and loss of American jobs. Do not tell me that they only take jobs do not want. What Americans do not want are slave wages and horrid working conditions that these illegals will accept. What we need is immigration reform where we can hire temporary workers at a living wage, with worker protection, who pay taxes and social security.
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest investigative agency in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Formed in 2003 as part of the federal government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, ICE’s mission is to protect the security of the American people and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the nation’s immigration and customs laws.
ICE is comprised of four operational divisions:
•Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)
•Office of Investigations (OI)
•Office of Intelligence (Intel)
•Office of International Affairs (OIA)
With more than 19,000 employees in over 400 offices in the U.S. and around the world, ICE plays a vital role in the DHS layered defense approach to protecting the nation.”
http://www.ice.gov/about/index.htm
…take jobs Americans do not want.
This Republican makes a good case about this Arizona law:
“Why conservatives should oppose Arizona’s immigration law
By Connie Mack
Friday, May 28, 2010; A23
America is at a crossroads on a number of issues. And as we tackle national concerns such as immigration, conservatives have a responsibility to commit ourselves to our philosophy of less taxing, less spending, less government and more freedom.
That means opposing any administration, Republican or Democratic, when it taxes too much, spends too much or takes over nearly one-sixth of the economy.
When the Obama administration undermines the basic concepts of capitalism and the free market through endless bailouts, “stimulus” plans and a government takeover of health care, it is picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy — and threatening our liberties.
The latest issue freedom-loving conservatives should be concerned about is the Arizona immigration law.
This law clearly challenges citizens’ freedoms, and it does so by putting some Americans at risk of losing their freedoms while others stand little or no chance of being affected.
During World War II, while a German American hero and future president — Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower — led the allied forces in Europe, this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. That outrage was wrong. We destroyed lives and undermined the very fabric of our Constitution.
We did so under the guise that we were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our nation.
Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens — a shameful overreach of the government.
The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives.
Illegal immigration poses clear security risks to our nation and is a cancer on our economic well-being.
The Obama administration and previous administrations have failed to secure our border. While the announcement of additional National Guard troops at the border is a good first step, the federal government must do more to secure our borders — both north and south — now.
But trampling on the rights of some Americans to protect the majority conflicts with the values our nation was founded upon.
Our Constitution protects individual freedoms and liberties. Nowhere does this document speak of protecting the majority over the minority. Anger about the economy, increased crime and security concerns are fueling this law, not constitutional principles.
Conservatives’ most important responsibility is to remember to protect freedom, liberty and the rights of every citizen. The Arizona immigration law doesn’t do that, and that’s why I oppose it.
I am proud that the GOP has been the party in which freedom has always mattered. We are a party whose members are willing to stand up for liberty because we believe that freedom matters and that it works.
As the wise saying goes, he who sacrifices freedom for security ends up with neither.
I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked “Where are your papers?” We are better than that. ”
The writer, a Republican, represents Florida’s 14th District in the U.S. House.
© 2010 The Washington Post Company
Yes, Taxpayer, I’ve taken this one incident and tied it to the fact that there are millions of illegals running around the country and in my pointy little head made a conclusion… systemic apathy within ICE perpetrated by their politically manipulated masters. I’m sure most of the agents in the field are fine hard working people but they’re stuck doing what they’re told. You’ll remember ICE includes INS in disguise which is an agency I, me, myself have had to deal with (have you?) and I wouldn’t wish it on most enemies. Nor would I wish them to have to deal with the State Department which is also – from experience – filled with people who look at you like you’re something they just stepped in. Petty self inflated potentates of their own little fiefdoms. So, from these examples and first hand experiences, I’ve made up my mind about ICE and the federal government in general. I have stated before that employers knowingly hiring illegals should be punished. You keep harping on it as if I don’t agree. I’d give one chance with a stiff fine (something meaningful based on profits that really hurts) to clean up and then it’d be mandatory jail time – in the stony lonesome not some country club. I also stated before that immigration reform – while needed – is premature while the border is a joke. Closing the border doesn’t require reform and when the Shamwow guy in the White House sent 1200 NG troops to the border I thought I’d have to eat my words… until I heard they’re unarmed and going to review statistics. Right, that’s going to fix everything… they can throw a ledger at the folks with assault weapons… more political B.S. calculated to induce a perception of action. Oh, and I really don’t know why you’d include pap from their website… what exactly would you expect it to say? Something bad about their agency? It’s dancing baloney like the fluff on any website, don’t let it distract you from the man behind the curtain. Would you visit the RNC website and believe their stuff?
fedup: You do realize that federal troops are prohibited by the constitution from having police powers? When the President of the United States of America sends federalized troops somewhere, they may not act as police. Do you really want to give the Army police powers as they do in China and North Korea? That has not worked out too well. What would you have them do?
I have had dealings with private companies and if you think federal employees act like assholes, you have no idea what private bureaucrats are like (perhaps you do but prefer them to state and federal types). I am going through that right now with my health care insurance company who think they should practice medicine and know better than my doctor.
Yes, we agree on employers hiring illegals. However, the Tea Party Republicans do not mention this nor do they connect assault weapons with violence and permissive gun laws in Arizona. I included the ICE website just to illustrate the scope of their work and I mentioned that in contains a little hyperbole (well maybe a lot). I do not believe, however, that field agents are told by anyone to ignore illegals nor do I believe they do. I do believe that this is a massive, systemic problem that requires a complete overhaul of the whole system. We can’t just nibble at the edges and complain about it.
We also cannot put up a wall to keep people out. Several have been tried and are failures, e.g., Israeli West Bank barrier, the Sinai Boarder fence, The Berlin Wall. Even the Berlin wall which was the worst with armed guards and killing fields did not help much in the end.
So, without any authority, sending them was as I said typical political B.S. calculated to induce the perception of action – as well as a waste of taxpayer’s money. Everything this administration does is geared toward perception – and wasting taxpayers money. What would I have them do? I guess that’s what I pay people in DC to figure out, huh? But no, they were too busy on bathroom equality hearings. China and N.K. armies have power over their OWN citizens and this is not what we need. We need a surveillance, electronic perimeter to stop the flow of illegals so comprehensive immigration reform can begin. You don’t agree that along with drying up the job market for illegals, the border needs to be closed? Or at least made to look like a border?
Insurance companies are a weak example. Most companies in the US rely on selling you a product or service and will have customer care departments and so forth… (some better than others) Insurance companies, be they health or auto are geared to DENY you service in order to profit. Sorry about your problems with your insurance company.
You don’t believe ICE agents are told what to do or that they ignore illegals… so my brother the deputy is a liar? Let’s get that out now. There are millions of illegals in the US… can’t ICE find a few? It seems you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting one in Arizona. You don’t believe that agents, deputies and officers across the country are told by their superiors how to behave or what to concentrate their energies on? Do you believe I made up his story for this pointless debate on a website in the middle of nowhere? (I only found it accidentally).
We certainly could put up a wall of surveillance and quick response teams. It’s a simple matter of how much the federal government is willing to spend on something they don’t want to do to begin with. You mention different barriers and fences and some are/were horrible things that I would never propose… however, before you denounce them as ineffective, what percentage of those who WANTED to cross those barriers were successful vs. how many that WANT to cross the US border and are successful… I’d pick the US border.
Gentleman you are a little off topic here!
victims…bottom
Its a shame that this site can’t be used for reasonable discourse. Day after day its the same hateful bitter people finding fault with everything and everyone that is not a carbon copy of themselves and turning every issue into politics. I feel sorry for people who live with so much hatred.
It is completely appropriate that this article (anyone remember what the original article was about?) and associated comments appear in the “School Yard” section.
Nanny Nanny Poo Poo!