Today’s Globe story on police unions gathering enough votes to restore $50 million in funding is very informative for a number of reasons.
I don’t want to necessarily argue the merits of the Quinn Bill — ideally I think all police officers should have a college degree before they are allowed to take the civil service exam. The story in itself merely raises a number of interesting points of debate.
1) It shows what an organized, influential special interest group can accomplish. They barrage their local reps offices with phone calls. They threaten to withhold their support next year. Their family members call up. They threaten to withold their support as well.
2) Will there actually be a vote on restoring funding? Just ask the organzers of the Transgender Bill. That bill has more than 81 signators. So why isn’t it a gimme that it will be passed? Because some of those same people who sign publicly are saying to House leadership privately, “Uh, can you kill this without making me vote on it?”
3) If a vote is taken, will it result in cuts elsewhere? And what will those cuts be? My guess is parks funding. Bears have poor voting records.
4) Will any of the 81 signators propose where to cut from? Or will they also propose how to raise revenue/taxes/fees?
“… ideally I think all police officers should have a college degree before they are allowed to take the civil service exam.”
<
p>Why do you think this? How would you address the issue of low income and minorities having lower college degree rates (and less chances to become Police Officers)?
This is absolutely true.
<
p>And that, in turn, is why every resident should be entitled to a free college education, including graduate degrees. An economic order that excludes low income and minorities from attaining a college degree virtually defines the meaning of “oppressive” and “exploitative”.
<
p>I can think of no better single investment in the future of our culture than encouraging every resident to attain, at public expense, whatever education they are able to complete.
<
p>If such a system were in place here in Massachusetts, the Quinn bill would be utterly unnecessary.
just the other day a street sweeper was sweeping my street and he stopped to let a squirrel pass and I said” hey it’s just a squirrel” and he replied…
<
p>”We are all but recent leaves on the same old tree of life and if this life has adapted itself to new functions and conditions, it uses the same old basic principles over and over again. There is no real difference between the grass and the man who mows it.”
<
p>So having an educated population does add value.
<
p>PS This is sarcasm.
philosophical street-sweepers to police thugs with graduate degrees who murder innocents like Victoria Snelgrove and David Woodman. I am appalled by morally corrupt organizations that mobilize to cover up their crimes and spineless legislators who prey on the powerless in order to perpetuate their abuses. I am disgusted by rightwing thugs who attempt to wrap their bigotry in ridicule, while promoting such abuses at my expense as a taxpayer.
<
p>And no, this is not sarcasm.
You may want to think about the Craigslist killer (SUNY Albany graduate and current Med student at BU) first.
<
p>Snelgrove was an unfortunate accidents and Woodman’s medical condition probably wasn’t helped by his excessive drinking and his actions which forced him to be restrained.
<
p>Why do people think thugs are rightwings? Plenty of left wing thugs (every union for starters). And lastly, we need to refer to the US public and citizens or some other broad moniker since “taxpayer” has lost its general label with 47% (or so) of US workers NOT PAING ANY TAXES (therefore we really can’t call them taxpayers… like I am). Maybe we could change this by only letting actual tax paying tax payers to vote.
It isn’t my fault that so many rightwingers are thugs.
<
p>
<
p>Ah yes, an “unfortunate accident”. Just like the police thugs who disrupted construction sites after the Governor threatened one of their feeding troughs were just exercising their right of free speech.
<
p>The Quinn bill is about spending taxpayer money.
<
p>
<
p>Your commitment to democracy is touching.
The left has a lock on thuggery (unions, unions and more unions).
…Tim McVeigh would agree.
So yes we have some thugs too but the left wins hands down.
Absurd.
<
p>People may fall below the income tax threshold, but that absolutely does not mean they are not paying any taxes. Here are just a few examples:
Social Security tax
Medicare tax
Gas Tax
Cigarette & Alcohol Taxes
Sales tax
Property tax
Utility Taxes
<
p>While it may be theoretically possible to avoid paying any Federal taxes by 1) not working and 2) not buying anything subject to federal excise taxes (gas, cigarettes, alcohol, airfare, etc) certainly that does not apply to 50% of the population. Once you include state and local taxes and fees, the idea of someone who pays no tax either indirectly or directly becomes an extremely tiny subset of the population.
Aren’t you perhaps confusing education with credentials?
<
p>I think that college education requirements are currently at overkill levels. Should a store clerk have a college education? Should a chef? A plumber?
<
p>Yes, people in those professions with degrees would be more attractive, but only because they have attained a form of credential, one that says “hey, this person was able to withstand four years of higher education, so they have showed that they are responsible”.
<
p>What specifically about a college education would be of benefit to a police officer?
The main argument of the Quinn Bill is that educated cops make for better cops. And I would agree with that. Why wouldn’t we want out police officers — the people who often control our liberty — to have something beyond a high school diploma? If someone really wants to be cop, they really should be able to figure out a way to earn a two-year associates degree.
<
p>We require teachers to have college diplomas before stepping foot in a classroom, regardles of ethnicity and socioeconomic background. And they don’t even carry guns!
<
p>
If it’s important that policemen have at least an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree, or whatever, then it ought to be a requirement of the job, no? In other words, why not eliminate the Quinn Bill, which claims to seek to encourage policemen to obtain degrees with monetary incentives, and replace it with a simple requirement that a police officer must have a certain degree before beginning work?
<
p>TedF
Has anyone done a study that demonstrates that cops with degrees perform better? It would be nice to have some real data rather than speculation.
<
p>
for the brainless (or heartless, or gutless) legislator, as much of the Quinn costs are charged to local budgets. Which have been Not Beacon Hill’s Problem since the Weld administration. (I’m not singling him out, it’s been bipartisan Beacon-Hill-o-centrism all the way.)
<
p>SSPragmatist’s poll is doubly ironic in that we know where this money will come from, namely every other local services that is not similarly protected by state mandate.
<
p>The final stage of this game, in which (as with the mighty Quinn Bill) state laws completely control the horizontal and vertical of local budgets, is for legislators to thump their chests and complain about those whiny local officials who can’t manage to balance their “own” budgets–unlike the great tough heroes of Beacon Hill.
It isn’t so much “ironic” as it is realistic with a touch of snarky.
Indulge me to repeat this post
<
p>
Are you really suggesting that taxes be increased so we can fund the Quinn Bill? Is that really the example we want to put forth?
so the restoration of state share of finding for the Quinn bill doesn’t get taken out of other important programs that keep our communities healthy — like public education, public health, social services etc etc etc. .
<
p>I think even police unions believe that it is time we all stuck our heads out of our individual issue silos, looked around at all the public structures and programs that make our communities livable and worked together to provide the necessary (small p) political support for our Reps to stand up and vote for a balanced adequate tax package?
Judy, it seems to me that money is fungible, so if your view is we should raise taxes to avoid cuts in programs that wouldn’t need to be cut if the Quinn Bill cuts were restored to the budget, then as a matter of economic reality you are indeed supporting a tax increase to fund the Quinn Bill.
<
p>And I question how you conclude, in light of the police unions’ actions on the Q.B., that the police unions agree that they need to “stick their heads out of their individual issue silos.” Quite clearly, they’ve succeeded in looking out for number one. As I understand it, they’ve persuaded the House to restore not just a fraction of the Q.B. funds, but the whole amount.
<
p>I believe “reform before revenue” is a trite and probably meaningless slogan. That being said, why should anyone spend political capital raising taxes to protect the Quinn Bill when he or she could spend that capital to restore the Q.B. cuts to the budget? Perhaps it is because the police unions have more political weight to throw around than the taxpayers, so that it’s simply easier to raise revenue than to cut a program like the Quinn Bill, which at least to me does not appear to have much if anything to recommend it? If I’m right about the relative strength of the police union versus the taxpayers, that’s a problem, no?
<
p>TedF
An amendment to restore the state share of the QB or any of the other hundreds of amendments proposing to restore other public programs must come from somewhere. Another line item or a new revenue stream.
<
p>And yes the police unions are very powerful. These men and women usually grew up and often live in the town they work in and are very well organized and capable of letting their elected officials know what they think about specific line items that affect their jobs. And that includes supporting after school programs and various “social service programs” that help our young people stay out of trouble.
<
p>They are also taxpayers.
Right. I didn’t mean that if you cut funding from one program, you could simply replace it with dollars from another program without making an adjustment to that program’s line item. I was simply saying that: (1) if the House does restore the fifty-odd million dollars it cut from the Quinn Bill funding; and (2) if the total amount to be spent does not increase; and (3) if the House therefore would have to take the money from some other line item in the absence of additional revenue; and (4) if we raise taxes to cover the gap, then it’s fair to characterize this whole transaction as raising taxes to maintain Q.B. spending.
<
p>TedF
And the state has already croaked the staties’ overtime construction detail income, and progressives and “good government” types want to croak yours at the local level. This is income…it’s where you LIVE. and they want to force you to pay more for health insurance..no bargaining over that. And now they want to end the Quinn bill which would instantly reduce salaries…even the suggestion of ‘grandfathering’ some of this stuff draws the ire of those confronting difficult times and seeking first to screw their employees…yes, public servants do work for us.
<
p>So, do you feel as if you are under attack, Mr. Cop?
You bet your sweet bippy you do.
<
p>And yet folks act shocked and outraged when they summon their union to advocate for them?
<
p>Sheesh…
I’ve got no problem with the police union advocating for the interests of its members. My problem is with the perverse incentives the legislature has to give the union what it wants even when it is probably unreasonable, from the perspective of the public good, to do so.
<
p>I also think that your argument about the settled expectations of the police officers, if we accept it at face value without asking whether the benefits that they have come to expect were reasonable in the first place, is the kiss of death for any real public benefits reform, because any practice, if it goes on for long enough, becomes the basis for settled expectations.
<
p>TedF
Ten years ago, anybody who could spell “Java” or “C++” could get a contract programming job in Boston paying $90+/hour — in 1999 dollars. Private industry “croaked” those jobs, and nobody whined very much about it (ok, I grant you there was some griping about “off-shoring”). Almost everybody understood that rates go up and rates go down.
<
p>We live in a capitalist economy, and in a capitalist economy rates go up, rates go down, salaries go up, salaries go down, people get hired, and people get laid off. Everybody else has to deal with it, why not cops?
<
p>I’d feel a lot more sympathy for the cops and their union if there weren’t so many fraudulent “disability” deals, sweetheart pensions, thuggery about details, and innocent people getting killed by overly aggressive cops.
<
p>I’m neither “shocked” nor “outraged” by their union advocating for them. I simply think that the best response is to say “I appreciate your concern, unfortunately we can no longer afford it” and then terminate the Quinn-bill gravy train.
Or restoration of Quinn Bill funding or anything else. I learned that [names on paper don’t translate into votes] the hard way and I bet you did, too.
<
p>I agree though that organized folks who hold signs, do friend cards, make donations, and show up at fund raisers year after year do get heard more than those who just whine online [a rhyme] – so I agree that the “blue line” or officers who have one another’s backs and are more likely to just plain show up are more likely to be heard.
<
p>As to the pushing match over “thuggery” I gotta say that myself, I have seen thuggery all across the political spectrum – namely folks who intimidate others, or try to, to get their way.
does not guarantee a win. But it’s a good bet that that this very well organized network across the state will continue to work to win additional support for the amendment on the Quinn bill and other amendments to restore state and locally funded programs like drug treatment programs, anti gang programs, after school programs AND new revenue streams, including the local options taxes to pay for them. As I said above
<
p>
Unfortunately, getting other groups to be “well-organized” without the multi-generational tradition and tribal linkages is … more than difficult. As I am sure you know…
I agree with you that fights between different advocacy groups can be counter-productive — i.e., education, social services, public health, etc. But isn’t the Quinn Bill a poster child for wasting money? Maybe progressive advocacy groups would have more credibility with those skeptical about tax increases if, while making the case for greater funding, they also challenged some of the special interest bullshit in the budget. I am willing and eager to pay a little more to fund early childhood education, immunization, foster care, etc. But does that mean I have to accept $100k+ cops, out of control pensions and healthcare benefits, etc.?
The Quinn Bill has been in effect since 1970 — 39 years. It’s safe to say that nearly every cop employed in this state was hired with the program in place. That was the arrangement when they entered the force.
<
p>The question is, does higher pay translate to a better caliber of cop? I find that entirely believable.
<
p>Eliminating the Quinn Bill amounts to cutting the pay of a lot of cops. Eliminating Quinn Bill funding will amount to cities and towns having to scramble for cuts elsewhere.
<
p>Why are people so eager to actually cut police salaries? Imagine if your employer said to you, “sorry, we’ve decided that your college degree really isn’t important to us anymore, so we’re going to cut your salary by 25%”. What would you do?
<
p>Now imagine if this was done to your entire profession — 25% pay cut to everyone doing the job that you went to school for. Why? Because a bunch of cranks were sick of paying you so much.
Pay cuts are rippling through my profession, among others. While I haven’t been affected (yet), it’s possible someone could walk into my office and say my salary was being cut by 10%. Or that I am being laid off. And you know what? That would be tough shit. So that’s what I say to the police unions: tough shit.
<
p>But that’s neither here nor there, because my salary isn’t paid by public dollars. I think it’s entirely legitimate for us to question whether six-figure salaries are an appropriate compensation of tax dollars for someone to sit in a cruiser and give tickets. And whether a b.s. degree from Cambridge College or American International should entitle them to a raise of $20k+. I’m sorry that I’m not fired up to pay more taxes to support that.
Pay cuts are rippling through my profession, among others. While I haven’t been affected (yet), it’s possible someone could walk into my office and say my salary was being cut by 10%. Or that I am being laid off. And you know what? That would be tough shit. So that’s what I say to the police unions: tough ‘bad word’ >>Ed Poon
<
p>Why don’t you form a (gasp) union?
2. We could partially cut it — for example, leave the raises for the first 50 points but not give out pay raises for PhDs or masters degrees, if only for a few years.
3. Not everybody who’s got Quinn Bill points qualifies for 25%. In fact, given that the maximum is 30%, I’d bet relatively few qualify for 25%.
<
p>For me, the question is: how much pay raise is any given advancement in education worth? My instinct: we pay too much of a bonus for masters and PhD level education. This isn’t based on any facts whatsoever, just an instinct of mine. I have no idea how much could be saved by eliminating new payouts on Quinn Bill participants at the masters or PhD level, with the idea of restoring them later when there’s more money around.
We all can fight for both both at the same time.
<
p>And we can disagree on which public structures need to be reformed the most and which new revenues are the best and where those new revenues are directed.
<
p>ONE Massachusettshas been very active in pushing for more transparency and more civic engagement from under represented constituencies in the whole policy making process, which I really think is the key to motivating and arming ordinary citizens who might get engaged in fighting for much needed reforms in everything from how we compensate public employees to how we deliver and pay for health care in the public and private sectors, and how we monitor and regulate the ethical behavior of elected and appointed officials and lobbyists.
<
p>Meanwhile we must accept an unpleasant truth that some of any new revenue package will go to programs we think are wasteful or wrong headed, and that another group of people think is important to the stability of their communities or the lives of their constituency.
<
p>Your job is to fight for full funding of the programs YOU care about.
<
p>And so it goes.
<
p>
“I don’t want to necessarily argue the merits of the Quinn Bill”
<
p>Perhaps you should have featured this comment more prominently or more often.
<
p>To me your first point is democracy in action. You care, you speak out. Your rep doesn’t represent you the way you want, you find another candidate in the next election. The words “special interest” and “threaten” are meant to portray the people and their actions as negative. I do not necessarily believe that to be the case.
<
p>Point 2 to me is a trick of legislative rules and honesty. I understand not everything comes to an individual vote, nor can it. But I would fully support rules that require only related things to be combined in votes.
<
p>Point 3: I love bears as much as the next guy and would support them. But at the expense of cutting capital gains taxes? (kidding. yes)
<
p>Point 4: The 81 signators get to choose or does the entire body try to find something that will pass the entire body?
<
p>No, democracy is not perfect. But if it does one thing well, it allows people who really care make a difference.
works for a majority of businesses that exist as a benefit that encourages professional development and an added perk. Why can this not be the case for public servants?
a few years ago regarding these Quinn bill courses. Weren’t there diploma mill style courses that were being lectured on police department property that had little or no academic standards? It’s fine that we want a educated police force, but the salary bumps seem high, and at some point, paying for the added degree seems like an unwarranted expense for the value provided. The percentage increases seem steep. Sure, pay for the bachelor’s degree via tuition reimbursement with achievement standards, but that should be the end of it. If you want more, and your position doesn’t require it, then it’s on your dime, not mine.