Someone call security! Clearly the Globe’s editorial page office has been infiltrated by those tricksy pranksters at the Pioneer Institute or something. Nothing else could explain the last two days of bizarre punditry emanating therefrom.
Here’s what I’m talking about. As you may recall, there’s some ongoing debate of how to manage the question of health care benefits for unionized municipal workers. The House passed a proposal that essentially eliminated the ability of unions to bargain over health care except for the share of premiums paid. Labor went ballistic, declaring that Wisconsin had come to Massachusetts and threatening wholesale withdrawal of support for House Democrats, as did some sympathetic BMGers. Last week, the Senate released its proposal, which would most likely get municipalities to a similar place, but via a process that gives labor more of a voice, and that shares more of the benefit. Labor’s reaction, while not exactly enthusiastic, was far more conciliatory, and the Governor voiced support as well, noting that the Senate’s plan is closer to what he had proposed than is the House’s.
Looking good, right? The Senate, the Governor, and labor are all more or less behind a plan that, according to the Mass. Taxpayers Foundation (not exactly a big friend of organized labor), will “get to the exact same place if you’re a municipality” as the House’s more draconian, far more divisive, plan.
Not good enough for the Globe, though, which conjures up unrealistic fantasies of “clunky” “bureaucratic” delays in its zeal for the House’s plan. Also – horror of horrors,
future governors and union allies could tie the hands of future mayors and city councilors by appointing pro-union panel members.
Oh noes! “Pro-union panel members”! How will the Commonwealth ever survive?
The Globe is way off on this. The Senate’s and the Governor’s plans give municipalities what they need, while not disemboweling collective bargaining. And labor seems willing to go along, which is much more important than the Globe recognizes. The backlash in Wisconsin (which we certainly wouldn’t want to see here) is an extreme example, but in general, it’s important that key stakeholders at least not be unalterably opposed to big policy shifts. Fortunately, the Globe appears to have approximately zero influence over what will actually happen, which is almost certainly going to be some variant on what the Senate and the Governor have proposed.
Turning its attention to national matters, the Globe again goes off the rails in today’s effort on entitlement reform. In the wake of Kathy Hochul’s win in NY_26, here is the Globe’s absurd prescription for what Democrats should do going forward.
They need to join with Republicans in enacting a long-term solution combining modest benefit adjustments to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security with targeted tax increases…. Even voters who are deeply concerned about deficit spending rely heavily on Social Security and Medicare. A plan that preserves both programs with limited changes to benefit levels, while also making a substantial cut in the long-term deficit, is in the public’s best interest.
OK, a couple things. First, why is Social Security even a part of this discussion? Social Security is solvent for decades, and a minor bump in the income cap would make it solvent for decades more. And it does not contribute a dime to the deficit. We have far more pressing issues to worry about. Social Security is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Second, this notion of “join[ing] with Republicans” to enact “targeted tax increases” is sheer fantasy. They simply will not do it. There is no point in anyone’s repeatedly banging their head against a wall in pursuit of “bipartisanship” on this topic, because the Republicans are not interested in anything on the revenue side. Until they grow up, there’s no point in trying.
Third, this assertion is plainly incorrect.
When presented with candidates of either party who propose either tax increases or changes to entitlements — both of which will be necessary to balance the budget — voters run in the other direction.
Nonsense. Polls show now, and have shown for quite some time, that a solid majority of voters favors letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, along with other measures like a millionaire surtax. That wouldn’t solve every problem, but it sure would be a good start. Polling also shows broad support for eliminating corporate loopholes that benefit big oil and other powerful special interests. So please, can we stop pretending that voters are complete dolts who refuse to cut any services and also refuse to raise taxes? It’s not true.
Speaking of pretending that voters are dolts, how about this for a closer?
A plan that preserves both programs with limited changes to benefit levels, while also making a substantial cut in the long-term deficit, is in the public’s best interest. It’s what voters want, even if they don’t know how to say so.
Wow. Um, no, actually that’s not “what voters want.” That’s what the Globe wants. As noted above, Social Security requires no “changes to benefit levels” to stay solvent indefinitely, and there’s no evidence that “voters want” benefit cuts; all the evidence, in fact, is to the contrary.
If the Globe wants to back slashing entitlements, it’s of course entitled (HA! get it? entitled?) to do so. But it shouldn’t pretend that that’s “what voters want,” since it’s actually not. Voters are actually pretty good at saying what they mean, if only folks like the Globe would listen.
a better press corps?
The Globe featured an alleged news article talking about unions “softening” their approach to health insurance cost smack down.
The problem with the article? The sources barely support the weasely contention of the lede:
This lede makes it seem like unions have given up on trying to influence the legislation. Words like “softened” and “full-throated” are weasel words intended to create “an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.
The implication–supporting the Globe’s anti-union line– is that unions have backed down on collective bargaining and municipal health insurance. Unfortunately, the article’s sole quote from any union comes, not from an interview, but from a letter sent out by the president of a union local. That’s right. A letter, not an interview. And after the initial attribution, it almost looks like an interview took place.
It’s true that unions have been quiet since the House vote. Here are a couple of possible reasonst: 1) the Senate Ways & Means plan looks a lot like what unions asked for (a 3-person panel replaces arbitration) 2) it’s now a time for lobbying.
Two years ago, Stan Rosenberg told me that reform of municipal employee health insurance was coming. The real issue was whether unions would have a say in the matter. He believed union should have a place at the table, but said, others disagreed. He didn’t provide names. That’s what things have come down to. The senate supports collective bargaining and the house doesn’t.
Right now, unions have nothing to talk about in public. The ball is in the senate’s court. And as the SHNS reported yesterday, labor hasn’t given up. “Labor leaders met privately with Senate President Therese Murray in her office Wednesday afternoon to discuss plans to alter the way unions are allowed to negotiate over health insurance benefits as the Senate prepares to tackle the hot-button issues in its fiscal 2012 budget.”
I don’t know if anyone else can follow this inside baseball stuff, but the fact is, the Globe article is a lousy piece of reporting and more than likely the result of the paper’s editors/editorial policy.
Noah Bierman, the author of the article Mark is criticizing, has another article on the Senate budget today, this time a puff piece about Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr.
In the article, Tarr rightfully says that the Senate budget is very important. But rather than follow his lead and cover any of the issues decided during the budget debate over the past two days, the Globe apparently wants Bierman to spend his time marvelling at Mr. Tarr’s sparkling personality and hard work (extra credit because he’s one of only four Republican members). The article barely qualifies as infotainment.
for public employee unions. Perhaps it’s the influence of their advertisers, or the suburban/Yankee watchdogs who seem perpetually camped out on Morrissey boulevard, peddling prefabricated anti-union prevarications for any and all occasions. I bet the Globe still considers itself to be pro-labor. The thing is, as private unions have declined in influence and membership, public employee unions seem to be the closest thing to a labor movement we have around here. And even they don’t have the kind of power they might have had at one time.
The saddest part is that when the Globe, affecting its signature tone of moderate fiscal wisdom, suggests a “sacrifice” by the unions, the chances are pretty good that the thing will actually happen sooner or later. Which is Kool and the Gang until it’s time for the next big suggested concession, a couple of fiscal years down the road. However, when the Globe, again adopting that same even-handed, straight-talk voice, suggests a similar sacrifice by management-level officials, by the rich, by bank CEO’s or whomever else, it seems as though nothing ever happens. There’s a definite power differential that makes the Globe’s somewhat anti-union bent all the more pernicious, I think.