[Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis

[Joe Campbell]

Thanks, Darrell! I respectfully disagree.

I don't think that the state is a business like other businesses, nor  
is education a commodity.

I work for the state as a logic teacher (among other things) but I am  
not selling anything to anyone; I am trying to teach people logic. (I  
acknowledge that a bit of salesmanship is important but that is  
another matter.)

One important difference is that the state benefits when students  
"buy" my "product," that is, we all benefit when we learn logic. Which  
is to say that the state has an interest in education that is distinct  
from its interests in businesses proper, IMHO.

Joe Campbell

On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I also thought this was a good post.  But, I disagree with the
> conclusion the author reaches.  The state IS a business in some ways:
> Both sell a product and neither can consistently spend more than it
> takes in.  If operating in the red a business or state has two
> options.  1.  Decrease spending.  2.  Increase income.  I was recently
> in a position where the business I ran had the same choice.  We didn't
> feel we could raise prices without alienating our customers.  That
> left us with little choice.  We had to cut benefits.  The state is the
> same, but with a more complex equation.  Their customer HAS to pay if
> they increase taxes.  But, the state needs to ask itself what will
> best benefit the economy, raising taxes for all, or decreasing state
> costs.
>
> That must have been a tough choice with such high stakes.
>
> I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.  Just two different
> paths with the same goal.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com 
>> ]
>> On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:50 AM
>> To: Dickow
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial  
>> Crisis
>>
>> This is a great post. I wonder why no one has responded.
>>
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Dickow <dickow at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem in my book concerning a 3% cut to state employees is
>>> that it is, in effect, a direct tax on a special segment of the
>>> state's population. The state would be making up its shortfalls at
>>> the expense of state employees. I think that the state shouldn't be
>>> thought of as an entity like a company, which might indeed have to
>>> trim their employees in some form or other. But in in the case of
>>> the state, the employees would be making a sacrifice that directly
>>> benefits other people in the state, not the owners of a somel
>>> corporation. A more equitable solution to the state's budgetary woes
>>> would be to impose a tax of some kind on everyone in the state.
>>> Then, everyone might have to kick back 1/2 percent or something, and
>>> all would be well. But alas, raising taxes is political NO NO!
>>> And... by the way, whatever happened to the state's Emergency Fund.
>>> did they spend that already?
>>>
>>> Bob Dickow, troublemaker
>>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================