I'm sure you've heard the story about the 1920's gangster who explained that he robbed banks because "that's where the money is!" At this point in time, the Republicans are where the mean-spirited, anti-union attacks on teachers are coming from. If a Democrat were pulling the same idiotic stunts, I'd be in their face too. In fact, New York's Democratic governor is probably about to pull into my sights. Cuomo, along with a Democratic Assembly and a Republican Senate have done a bit of what the Republicans have done, They have given to the wealthy (by allowing he millionaires' surtax to expire) while at the same time blaming a lack of revenue for huge cuts to schools and healthcare. (It will take another week or two--until local school district residents understand what the secret-deal education cuts mean in terms of teacher layoffs and/or property tax increases--before it hits the fan across New York.) Here's a good column about the NY budget:
2) Paul Krugman's column in today's NY Times involved teachers. Here's part of the column:
"Two weeks ago, Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,” that argued that slashing government spending and employment in the face of a deeply depressed economy would actually create jobs."
"Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring."
That's right, the Republicans are arguing that putting more people out of work will be good for employment because people will now work for lower wages. Maybe we should all just agree to work for Chinese wages and then we could have full employment! I must be missing the part where this is supposed to be good for the middle class! And people believe this crap!!
Here's the link to his complete column:
3) What kind of wage is needed today to provide basic economic security? A study released Friday by Wider Opportunities for Women, a non-profit group, tries to set thresholds for economic stability, rather than mere survival. They wondered what wages were required to meet the basic needs of everyday living, as well as being able to save for emergencies and retirement. Here's what they found:
"According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker.
That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2009."4) OK, let's end on a higher note. Here's a column titled "Get Rid of the Lazy Teachers, and Lower My Taxes!" Trust me, you'll love it!
No comments:
Post a Comment