By John H. Ashley, WASB Executive Director
When Jack Olkowski retired in 2003 from the school board in Three Lakes, Wis., after 54 years of service, it was reported that he may have been the longest serving school board member in our nation’s history. When interviewed, Jack said, “The most difficult time during my tenure was in the 1980s when boards and teacher unions clashed in collective bargaining before the state’s qualified economic offer legislation was enacted.”
Today, Gov. Jim Doyle and state Democratic leaders have expressed a strong interest in repealing the QEO because they think it has locked “depressed teacher salaries and rising benefit costs” into place. But, the QEO isn’t the problem. It is part of the solution.
Since the QEO became law in 1993, teachers have been effectively guaranteed annual salary and benefit increases of at least 3.8 percent. If a district believes it cannot provide that minimum increase, the teachers’ union can challenge the school board offer.
The perennial argument that the QEO has “capped” teacher salaries or inhibited innovative bargaining just doesn’t square with reality. Most teachers receive annual increases in salaries and benefits of more than 3.8 percent. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards’ database shows that total compensation increases averaged 4.2 percent in 2007-08 and 4.1 percent in 2008-09.
Very few school districts have deployed the QEO as a means to settle their contracts, but having the law on the books has reined in settlements and sparked serious negotiations on health insurance.
Before the QEO, there was little risk to unions for seeking arbitration because the worst they could get was the board’s best offer, and often they could compel an unelected arbitrator to give them more. This forced boards to reallocate their dollars or levy more taxes in an effort to maintain educational programs and facility upkeep.
In the nine years before the QEO, settlements increased, on average, more than 7 percent annually — well above the rate of inflation for each of those years. High-cost arbitration decisions created a whipsaw effect for neighboring school districts and property taxes began to increase at double-digit rates.
Teacher contract settlements were a major factor driving up property taxes beyond homeowners’ ability to pay in the 1980s and early 90s. Those settlements often included high-end health insurance provisions that have hamstrung boards’ efforts to increase teacher salaries.
The QEO has allowed boards to shift their focus away from year-round collective bargaining to student achievement and public accountability for learning, avoiding the community turmoil over teacher contracts that Jack Olkowski experienced.
Now, some state policymakers want to repeal the QEO and go back to the old arbitration days. But at what cost to our students and communities?
When contract negotiations result in arbitration, it strips local control away from school boards and their communities. The final decision on salaries and benefits rests in the hands of arbitrators, unelected specialists in labor negotiations, not education.
Further, levying more taxes is no longer an option to pay for higher compensation costs because the state now prevents boards from increasing property taxes beyond a state-imposed limit. If an arbitration decision exceeds a board’s budget, it means the reallocation of resources or the elimination of staff to meet the higher compensation costs. Students will feel the pinch with larger class sizes and fewer educational opportunities.
Eventually, a repeal of the QEO will compel boards to rely more heavily on referendums to pay for maintenance, technology and other critical costs that can no longer be afforded.
Whether we should make public policy decisions for communities and public education in this manner is one issue. Another major issue is the extensive legal time that is required to document budget data and elected officials’ spending decisions in order for boards and the public to be fairly represented in arbitration. The legal costs of repealing the QEO would be a substantial burden for districts that are already strapped.
Students and communities deserve good schools. Teachers deserve fair compensation and decent health insurance. Repealing the QEO does not achieve those objectives; and worse, it will exacerbate the financial shortfalls school districts are already facing.
Those of us who remember the tumultuous days of the 1980s are not easily swayed by rhetoric and would urge those who advocate a repeal of the QEO to rethink their position and develop strategies that enhance educational opportunities for students.
John Ashley is executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
More Proof The Democrats Caused This Financial Crisis!!!!!!!!
The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis": (15 years in the making)
1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
Question: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?
Answer: See below to find out who is covering up their guilt !
1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.
1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.
1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk".
Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole".
Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.
2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, sub prime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
Bush urged reform 17 times.
If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condemning!
If a click does not bring you there, copy the address and paste it in your browser address box.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related
Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.
1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
Question: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?
Answer: See below to find out who is covering up their guilt !
1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.
1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.
1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk".
Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole".
Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.
2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, sub prime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
Bush urged reform 17 times.
If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condemning!
If a click does not bring you there, copy the address and paste it in your browser address box.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related
Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Some Great Quotes from Ronald Reagan
"Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the cooperation of Paul"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress."
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much."
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress."
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much."
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Green Conservatism Based on Facts and Science....Not Fear
We can be environmentally conscious without spreading panic and creating more big government. All we have to do is use Scientific Facts.....and not listen to the fear mongering of the Algore's of the world.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)