February 23, 2011

I have just learned that the Unionville-Chadds Ford Education
Association has again rejected the fact-finder’s report and apparently remains
adamant in its demand that we must pay them more than has been proposed by the
UCFSD Board. I’m writing to
express my dismay and frustration with the union’s position and to challenge
the union’s negotiating stance.

What I’ve read on the UCFEA Web site and heard regarding
statements attributed to UCFEA spokespersons, the union believes that its
demands are in keeping with their definition of “fairness.” but fair to
whom? Many of us in the UCFSD are
living within our means, but we’re increasingly having to make choices
concerning how and where to spend our money. Our incomes are fixed and or reduced, and our expenses just
keep rising. Moreover, in case the
union missed it, our school taxes are based on assessed property value, not on
income, so as the rates go up, our disposable income—if there is any—goes
down. This affects every resident
in the district either directly of indirectly, and it is not income dependent. Is it “fair” that I have to forego
certain expenses so that I can pay for raises for teachers who are making more
than the median earned income in the district? Is it “fair” that the union decides how I should spend my
money? Is it “fair” that folks who
cannot keep pace with the tax increases have to leave the district?

When I think about the ongoing negotiations, I first try to
articulate my goals, which are (in priority order, highest to lowest):

·
Provide a quality education for all the children in the
disgtrict

·
Establish an affordable and sustainable economic
foundation to pay for educational “essentials” and to defray a portion of the
costs “non-essentials”, especially for families who are otherwise unable to
afford them

·
Within the framework created by the above, hire the
best teachers we can, and find ways to reward those who excel

In my opinion, we have yet to accomplish or even agree upon
the second of my goals; therefore, no amount of haggling on the third will get
us to where I’d like for us to be.

With regard to affordability, I simply cannot continue to pay
an ever-increasing percentage of my disposable income (that which is left over
after state and federal taxes but before school taxes and “discretionary”
expenses) to everyone who thinks they deserve it. How much, as a percentage of income” does the UCFEA contend
that I should pay for teachers’ compensation. If my income declines, is the union prepared to take a
commensurate reduction in salaries and benefits?

On the subject of sustainability, while the UCFEA would like
to disregard the impact of PSERS, those of us who pay the bills simply cannot. UCFEA argues that the state picks up a
portion of the cost, and while that’s been true in the past, there’s simply no
guarantee that it will continue. If
it is not, guess who has to pick up the difference?

Perhaps the union is not aware of the funding challenges
associated with defined benefit plans?
In the private sector, huge unfunded liabilities were contributory to
numerous bankruptcies, and many workers saw their pensions drastically reduced
by the courts. I believe that the
public sector’s day of reckoning is at hand, and I’d urge the union to get
ahead of the game by working to establish a new defined contribution retirement
plan.

Mike
Ashmore
Chadds Ford Township

About CFLive Staff

See Contributors Page https://chaddsfordlive.com/writers/

• Mail
|
• More Posts(8333)

What the world witnessed in
Egypt and what people have been seeing in Wisconsin are not the same. Granted,
protestors in the Middle East and the teachers in Wisconsin both used the word
democracy, but the word was used in two different ways.

In Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and
other Middle Eastern nations, people are calling for an end to tyranny and
oppressive governments that lord power over the average citizen and pad the
coffers of their political cronies. People are calling for freedom, for at
least the beginning of a condition of liberty.

Whether they succeed or not is
yet to be determined.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and
the teachers in that state have a different battle.

On the right, pundits and
politicians are saying the teachers want to have their cake and eat it, too.
They want the civil service security of a job for life, but with the benefits
and pay of the private sector to be paid for by fellow citizens who are making
less than the teachers.

On the left, the teachers and
others are saying they want nothing more than the right to continue their
collective bargaining with the state.

A debate over collective
bargaining would be legitimate if it weren’t for the fact that, at present at
least, it’s a moot point. It’s not a matter of what teachers do or do not
deserve or whether public employees have the right to bargain collectively.
It’s a matter of Wisconsin’s financial health.

That consideration is not
limited to Wisconsin. The country is broke, states are broke and taxpayers in
school districts are strapped for cash, too, even those in the
Unionville-Chadds Ford School District. Yet, everybody seems to have their
hands out for more largesse, claiming they deserve it. Maybe they are
deserving, but that’s irrelevant if there’s no money to pay for it.

The real debate—the one that
should be had in the cold light of financial reality—is over the legitimate
functions of government and where and how those governments get the money to
pay for those functions.

It’s a long and drawn out
debate with many questions that need to be asked, but won’t be asked by
politicians or teachers. One question is crucial: Should government, municipal,
state or federal be involved in education at all?

Why not separate the government
from education altogether? Private and parochial schools work well. So does
home schooling. Education is too important to be left to government. And,
looking at the financial affairs of the nation, most states and likely most
people, government schools do a rotten job in teaching economics.

Religion is better off without
government intrusion and education would be, too. Teachers would also be free
to negotiate without feeding at the public trough.

This won’t happen, though.
People are too addicted to rule from above and a pretense of something for
nothing, and politicians so addicted to power over others that nothing will
likely change anytime soon.

The people of Egypt called for
less intrusion into their lives by government. Libyans are dying for that end.
They are right in doing so. Maybe their actions, and the actions of those in
Tunisia and other countries will rekindle that same spirit here.

About CFLive Staff

See Contributors Page https://chaddsfordlive.com/writers/

• Mail
|
• More Posts(8333)

Last week, Borders Group Inc.,
the owners of bookstores across country, filed for bankruptcy protection. The
company realized that it could no longer continue in business because its total
debts were equal to its total assets.

That same week, President Obama
introduced a budget that shows the national debt now equals our total gross
domestic product for the year. In other words, our annual “income” equals our
total debts. We are into dangerous territory where our national debt starts to
drag down our entire economy. We must take concrete action to reduce government
spending and debt.

This is what we did in the
House of Representatives. Republican leadership brought the bill to continue
funding the government to the floor under an open rule. This meant that any
member could offer an amendment or speak about the bill.

We saw vigorous debate over the
proper role of the federal government. Every part of our discretionary budget
was considered, from healthcare to defense. Nearly 600 amendments were drafted
with hundreds being offered. The House voted dozens of times, even working
until nearly 4:00 in the morning one day. Members on both sides of the aisle
thanked Speaker Boehner for maintaining the open process.

Things didn’t always go the
speaker’s way. In one particular instance, a Department of Defense program that
directly benefits Boehner’s district was cancelled. But Boehner recognizes that
democracy isn’t about always getting exactly what you want.

Listening to the arguments coming
from the other side of the aisle, you would think that this bill shuts down
every government program in existence. The fact is that the bill was written to
roll spending back to fiscal year 2008 levels. I don’t think there are many
Americans who think that the federal government was too small three years ago.

I have to admit, many of these
programs do good things. Not every program we cut is pure waste. But the
question we must ask as legislators is not just whether a program has real
benefits.

Taking your family on a
vacation to Disney World may be a wonderful bonding experience with memories
that last a lifetime. But each family must decide whether they can afford that
vacation and continue to pay the bills. Even when you do decide to go to Florida,
you must make choices about how to travel and where to stay.

Responsible legislating means
that we have to set priorities, something that Washington has neglected for far
too long. If we follow the president’s budget plan, the yearly interest that we
pay on the national debt will triple in just a decade. By 2020, we could be
paying $844 billion a year just to hold our creditors at bay. Think of all the
good things we could be doing with that money.

Our federal government does
important and necessary things: our well-funded military keeps us safe,
Medicare keeps elderly Americans healthy, our roads allow for the free movement
of products and people. But if we do not set priorities now, the debt will
eventually prevent us from doing these good things and our private sector
economy will crumble under this incredible burden.

At this time we have to
remember that government is not the sole source of good in this country. Over
the last few years, I have travelled across the 16th District meeting with
employees and volunteers at local food banks. With minimal or no government
assistance, they are helping families struggling in this economy.

These are not easy times, and
we must rise to the occasion as a nation. Americans must give generously,
business owners must look for new opportunities, and employees must work hard.

Congress must also rise to the
occasion. We can no longer ignore our budget problems. Over spending by the
government is one of the barriers to private sector job creation that must be
overcome.

Our work on the continuing
resolution must be only the beginning. At the same time, this needs to be an
open and transparent process with every Representative and Senator
contributing. In this critical time, representative democracy must work to
strengthen and unite our country.

* Joe Pitts is the Republican U.S. representative serving
Pennsylvania’s 16^th Congressional District.

About U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts

U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is the Repubican congrerssman representing Pennsylvania's 16th Legislative District.

• Mail
|
• More Posts(2)