Public Policy and Governance – Page 313

The Power of Framing

During one hour of television tonight, I heard four repetitions of an ad in which Mitch Daniels explains that “this one simple law”–the deceptively named Right to Work law–will bring jobs to Indiana, and keep people from being forced to pay union dues. It was extremely well done. Once during that hour, I saw a much less persuasive ad calling Right to Work an “attack on working people.” Daniels had specific points to make; the opposing ad simply claimed the bill would be bad for workers. Advantage: Daniels.

Unfortunately for the policy process, Daniels’ specific points were simply untrue. The union ad would have been considerably more effective had it pointed that out.

Let’s begin with the way the administration is framing this issue. People shouldn’t be “forced” to pay “dues or fees” as a condition of employment. Put that way, it seems like a very reasonable position. But let’s ask a slightly different–and arguably more accurate–question: should some people be forced to provide services to their co-workers for free?

Let’s try an analogy: Let’s say you are a dues-paying member of a social club, and a guy you know says he want to come to the parties and enjoy the refreshments, but he doesn’t want to join the club. Fine, you say, just pay for your food and drink. But the visitor doesn’t even want to do that–indeed, he is highly offended by the suggestion.

That’s what Right to Work is really about–letting some folks “mooch” off the efforts of others.

Under current labor laws, no one has to join a union. But if you go to work in a union shop, you are required to pay your fair share of the costs of negotiation–your share of the amount paid to the people who represent you in dealings with management. You are required to pay for a benefit you receive. That’s it.

A lot of claims are being made by those who want to see this law passed, and most of them are either blatantly untrue or incredibly misleading. For example, the National Right to Work Committee has issued a “Fact Sheet” claiming–among other things–that job growth in Indiana was slower than the average job growth of Midwest states with Right to Work laws. Daniels echoes that assertion in his TV ad– but the claim is “true” only because one of those states is North Dakota, where oil fields were recently discovered, leading to a huge boom. If you exclude North Dakota, the remaining Right to Work States averaged a net job loss. Similarly, the Committee lauds Texas, a Right to Work state, for its job creation during the past decade–without bothering to mention that Texas’ job growth was all in the public sector, and entirely due to the growth of government–Texas private sector actually lost jobs during the past decade.

Other claims were similarly misleading. Independent research–as I noted in a previous post--finds absolutely no relationship between job creation and Right to Work laws, either positive or negative. The only documented effect of such laws is to weaken unions and reduce wages for both union and non-union workers.

So–one might ask–why is the Governor so determined to enact this legislation that he is willing to spend a fortune airing highly misleading TV ads? Why is he so intent upon ramming this through that he was willing to impose “safety” regulations that would keep union members from filling the Statehouse, until the public outcry made him rethink that tactic? The only reason I can think of is because such laws hurt unions, and unions generally support Democrats. It’s purely political.

But you’ve got to give Daniels and the Republicans credit: they are one hell of a lot better at framing this issue than the Democrats are in explaining it.

Comments

At Least It’s A Short Session…..

My own children weren’t among those who feared monsters under the bed, but I had friends who regularly had to assure their toddlers that the room had been cleared of things that go bump in the night.

Those children evidently grew up to populate the Indiana General Assembly.

Senator Kruse has filed Senate Bill 90, aimed at preventing Indiana courts from applying Sharia law. Because that is so likely to happen here. This trend began last year in Oklahoma, and legal blogs report that in addition to Indiana, five states are considering such legislation: Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, South Carolina and Wyoming. (Not surprisingly, these are not states that top the educational achievement lists….)

Senate Bill 90 “Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or U.S. Constitution.” It prohibits people from entering into a contract to apply foreign law to contract disputes, and prohibits courts from transferring cases to other jurisdictions if the transfer is likely to “affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.”

I’m not sure what effect this would have on the application of international trade laws, or the Law of the Sea, and it does appear to interfere with the right of two parties to decide for themselves what law will apply to their contracts. I’m not sure how judges are supposed to know whether courts in other jurisdictions–say New York or California–might rule in ways that the bill’s sponsor believes will “affect” the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.

Indiana faces significant challenges. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. Our local governments are starving for resources. Our infrastructure needs outstrip our ability to address them. We continue to fight over the best way to improve our substandard schools. So our legislators have gotten really busy–outlawing Sharia law and promoting creationism. (More on that tomorrow.)

Given the language of the bill, it probably passes constitutional muster. So would a bill outlawing monsters under the bed.

Comments

Holiday Gifts

It appears that We The People have received a needed bit of holiday cheer after all. The Republicans in the U.S. House had to back down and agree with the bipartisan agreement reached in the Senate to extend the middle-class tax cut by two months, in order to give negotiators time to work out a longer-term agreement. And here in Indiana, embarrassing buffoon Charlie White was declared ineligible to serve as Secretary of State.

The House GOP may finally have worn out any remaining patience of even members of their own party; it was clear that they were being intransigent simply because they could be. None of their explanations made any sense, and even their usual defenders deserted them. (I almost felt sorry for Boehner, who was evidently backed into this particular corner by his own party’s most extreme elements.) The “crazy caucus” is rather clearly motivated only by one thing: animus to Obama. It will be interesting to see how many of these sorry excuses for public servants survive the 2012 election.

Speaking of sorry excuses, how do we even try to understand Charlie White?

It is one thing to be ethically obtuse. We have a lot of that in Indiana these days, as Matt Tully noted in this morning’s column. It is quite another to defy calls for your resignation by leaders of your own party and virtually every newspaper in the state. The job of Secretary of State includes administration of the voting laws; the irony of having a Secretary of State who was guilty of voter fraud was obvious to everyone except Charlie White. By refusing to resign when he might have done so, White didn’t just give Indiana politics a black eye; if appellate courts uphold Judge Rosenberg’s (well-reasoned) decision, he may end up costing his own party automatic ballot access, among other things.

However satisfying it may be to see the House reluctantly do the right thing, and to see not just Charlie White but several other elected officials get their “just deserts” (Paul Bateman, Lincoln Plowman, etc.), the only thing that will ultimately fix our sorry politics is us. We The People elected these sorry specimens. We are the ones who didn’t pay attention, who shrugged off ethical lapses because “all politicians are dirty.” (They aren’t, but we are creating an environment that is pretty off-putting to the good people who want to serve.)

Until we are ready to engage, to work for a government that will work for us, we’ll continue to get politicians who serve their contributors and cronies. Self-government requires participation. Voting is important, but it isn’t sufficient.

Maybe Santa will bring us some civic engagement this year. We can hope.

Why Doesn’t Mitch Want to Testify?

Governor Daniels was the “hands on” manager responsible for Indiana’s failed effort to privatize welfare eligibility determinations in the state. He originally bragged that the move was his idea, and when it proved to be a huge mess, he was admirably forthright about taking the blame. While I’ve not read his book, friends who have read it say that those admissions and regrets made it into print as well.

So why is he doing everything he can to avoid testifying about it?

IBM has sued the state over the termination of their part of the contract (ACS, as usual, escaped the consequences and continues to feed at the public trough). IBM wants to depose the Governor. Seems reasonable–Daniels is clearly “in the know” about a number of issues critical to the litigation. But he’s fighting tooth and nail to avoid being deposed, and it’s hard not to wonder why.

The American system of justice depends upon the compliance of parties and witnesses in order to function. In our system–at least theoretically–no one is “too busy” or “too important” to discharge this civic duty. If I receive a subpoena, I have to respond; so should the Governor.

The Supreme Court insisted that Bill Clinton had to give testimony in the tawdry Paula Jones case, even though he was President and the litigation had absolutely nothing to do with the conduct of the government. Daniels, on the other hand, is being asked to testify about the use of tax dollars and the delivery of critical public services.

The continued stonewalling makes one wonder what the Governor doesn’t want us to know.

The Older I Get, the Less I Understand….

Final week is over, grades are in, and I’ve had more time to read the news. That’s obviously a mixed blessing.

There are so many things I just don’t understand.

There’s a toaster that embosses the face of Jesus on each piece of bread as it toasts. It is evidently selling briskly.

There’s Newt Gingrich.

And then there’s the House GOP. Even the Senate GOP is scratching its collective head over them. After the Senate passed one of the few genuinely bipartisan measures that has emerged this year, extending unemployment benefits and the payroll tax reduction for two more months, the House Republicans are refusing to go along. No coherent reason why has yet emerged, although John Boehner has seemed particularly teary.

Think about this: Christmas is coming. So the House GOP wants to raise taxes on America’s dwindling middle class and its working poor, while continuing to insist that the historically low taxes on the rich cannot move up an inch. Ignore, for the moment, the moral poverty and economic danger of that position. Think about the political obtuseness of the message they’re sending.

Even they must recognize that this is not the way to popular acclaim. The New York Times reported this morning that “rather than have a straight up-or-down vote, the House will implement a procedural maneuver in which they will “reject” the Senate bill while requesting to go to conference with members of that chamber in a single measure, protecting House members from having to actually vote against extending a payroll tax cut. During the conference meeting among Republican members, some members expressed concern about effectively voting for a tax increase on the eve of an election year, said some who attended.”

Ya think?

Comments