[Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis

[a]

The point that you continue to miss is that by asking ALL of Idaho's taxpayers (as was the plan in the original post that several, including yourself, thought was such a marvelous idea) to kick in to prevent state employees from experiencing the pinch of a 3% cut back you are placing a greater burden on many of the taxpayers then you are the state employees. If the economy going south has hurt a persons income by 10% taking another .5% to make it so others experience a 0% reduction is blatantly "unfair." Enduring a 3% reduction when other are dealing with far bigger hits to their income is hardly "shouldering the burden alone."

Now, as to your newly revised plan where by "you ask all state employees to give 3% of their pay to help the some who are in danger of loosing their jobs" This would be a matter for the state employees to decide for themselves not I. I find it hard to believe that 100% would agree and without that consensus It would strike me as a classic example of the tyranny of democracy but since I am not a member of the group my opinion on this plan counts for nothing.

g
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Campbell 
  To: g. crabtree 
  Cc: a ; <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis


  It is not a plan. It is an argument about fairness. I don't see it having any chance of happening, nor am I trying to make it happen.


  My point is only that it would be the fair thing to do and that it is a better idea than the idea of asking state employees to shoulder the burden alone.


  Think of it this way. Would you ever give up 3% of your pay to another locksmith who was afraid of losing his job? No. But when you ask all state employees to give 3% of their pay to help the some who are in danger of loosing their jobs, you are in effect asking folks to do something similar.


  The main point of my posts is that this is a bad and unfair plan. Maybe my "plan" is bad too but at least it is fair!

  Joe Campbell

  On Apr 29, 2009, at 6:16 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:


    The point, originally, was that imposing additional tax on people who are already taking a hit from the economic down turn so that state employees won't be forced to do the same was a poorly conceived plan. Everything else was you being simple.

    g
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Joe Campbell 
      To: g. crabtree 
      Cc: a ; <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
      Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:40 PM
      Subject: Re: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis


      You are distorting my point, which was a simple one.

      Joe Campbell

      On Apr 28, 2009, at 7:40 PM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:


        "If you can't see a connection between the anti-tax rhetoric of  
        teabaggers like yourself and the fact that staff at UI and WSU will  
        lose their jobs soon, that is not my fault."

        Once again you attempt to shift the argument to new ground. (a familiar, albeit clumsy, tactic) So be it, please point out how those of us who were expressing our dissatisfaction with federal spending on 15 April caused the budget shortfall that has brought about the need to implement cut backs at the local universities today. Please explain how being unhappy that Our Beloved Leader will increase the deficit by 2.3 trillion dollars has anything to do with the current need for 3% cut to employees wages to keep the '09/10 budget in check. Please show me the big tax reduction that protesters rammed down the throat of legislators in Boise that will necessitate the mass lay offs you speak of.

        The FACT that tax revenue in Idaho is down and cuts need to be made has nothing to do with the events of two weeks ago. Trying to bring it in as a factor is disingenuous. Or were you shooting for some sort of primal cave man logic?

        taxes = all that is good (puppies, jobs, world peace)

        people in favor of less tax = all that is evil (cancer, unemployment, terrorism)

        If so, congratulations. Who could argue with reasoning like that.

        g



        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
        To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
        Cc: "a" <smith at turbonet.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:44 PM
        Subject: Re: [Vision2020] State Faculty Union Responds to Financial Crisis


        > The problem is a problem about state employees, Crabtree. Most of the  
        > money for the salaries at issue comes from state revenues.
        > 
        > If you can't see a connection between the anti-tax rhetoric of  
        > teabaggers like yourself and the fact that staff at UI and WSU will  
        > lose their jobs soon, that is not my fault, and I will not pay the  
        > price for your ignorance, at least not alone.
        > 
        > The connection is really very simple: these are some of the ways in  
        > which your tax dollars are used, to pay the salaries of Roger's wife,  
        > Paul, and folks like myself. When you reduce taxes, many such people  
        > -- of which there are a lot in the area -- lose their jobs. This is  
        > OUR problem, not my problem.
        > 
        > Joe Campbell
        > 
        =======================================================
        =======================================================
        > 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.8/2086 - Release Date: 04/29/09 06:37:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090429/dbf9bf21/attachment-0001.html