Work update: I start training on April 26, not April 27. And as this is Challenge week, and Challenge has to get to the printer by about 8 on Monday morning, and training starts at 8:30 on Monday morning, juggling it all is going to be...um...a challenge. Bill has volunteered to pick up Challenge from the printer Monday afternoon and transport it to GAAMC for stuffing, and I've got the mailing labels and stamps ready.
As for Bill hearing about continuing work from the Census Bureau...silence.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The wrong question; or, how the federal government works. I got an e-mail from Garden State Equality today. They want me (and everyone else they sent the e-mail to) to go to their site and answer a one-question poll. The one question? "How would you assess the progress President Obama is making on LGBT civil rights?" Since this is really too complex a question to be answered by a simple "good/bad" choice, you'd expect some sort of space for an open-ended answer. However, what you're presented with are these two choices:
"He's doing well, given how hard it is to move things in Washington and especially compared to past Presidents."
"He's not fast and bold enough, and I worry that as time goes on, he'll have missed his best opportunity for change."
Now, back in February, I gave my own report card on how I thought the President had done in four major areas. (The post is still there; I'll wait here if you want to go read it.) I gave him a good grade in one area (immigration reform), a middling grade in two others (ENDA and "don't ask, don't tell") and a failing grade in one more (DOMA repeal). So how could I choose between the two answers given in this poll?
And then it struck me. Of the four areas, only one could be handled by Presidential action alone, and that one was immigration reform. This was the lifting of the ban on immigration -- even on entering the country to visit -- for anyone who was HIV-positive. This was one of Jesse Helms' brainchildren, and it couldn't die until the old fart himself kicked the bucket. Once he did, the ban's days were numbered.
Of course, it took the President roughly a year to get his own Department of Homeland Security to dismantle the remaining pieces of the policy. (And it took former President Bush roughly a year before that to get the ball rolling.) But he did get it finished, and for that he deserves praise.
But the other three? They're all up to Congress, not the President.
Yes, you heard me right. The other three areas are all related to legislature passed by previous Congresses, so to fix or end them, Congress has to pass another law doing so.
Now, the Senate has had hearings on repealing "don't ask, don't tell", with common-sense testimony from the Secretary of Defense (a Republican holdover from the Bush Cabinet), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and decorated gay veterans of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the House looks set to start committee hearings on ENDA, now that both sides have agreed on the language of the proposed legislation. So they're moving right along -- at least, as fast as either house of Congress is used to moving.
And the President is doing what he should be doing -- sitting back and letting the legislative branch of the government do its job. With, of course, an occasional supportive comment.
So, back to GSE's poll. For that stuff that the President can do, he's doing pretty well. I'd like him to speak out more often in favor of ENDA, and repealing DOMA and DADT, and so would many more people, both gay and straight. A little more use of the "bully pulpit" couldn't hurt, although the President can't rely on a solid base of supportive Democratic legislators in both houses, and his speaking out might not do as much good as it could, and might even hurt a little. But all things considered, on this score I'd say he's doing well.
And for that stuff that only Congress can do? They're coming along, but they're not fast and bold enough. (Then again, Congress is rarely fast or bold, let alone both together.) So if the question were also being asked about Congress, I'd go with option B (not fast or bold enough).
The results of both those polls would make for some interesting reading by our political leaders in Washington.
"He's doing well, given how hard it is to move things in Washington and especially compared to past Presidents."
"He's not fast and bold enough, and I worry that as time goes on, he'll have missed his best opportunity for change."
Now, back in February, I gave my own report card on how I thought the President had done in four major areas. (The post is still there; I'll wait here if you want to go read it.) I gave him a good grade in one area (immigration reform), a middling grade in two others (ENDA and "don't ask, don't tell") and a failing grade in one more (DOMA repeal). So how could I choose between the two answers given in this poll?
And then it struck me. Of the four areas, only one could be handled by Presidential action alone, and that one was immigration reform. This was the lifting of the ban on immigration -- even on entering the country to visit -- for anyone who was HIV-positive. This was one of Jesse Helms' brainchildren, and it couldn't die until the old fart himself kicked the bucket. Once he did, the ban's days were numbered.
Of course, it took the President roughly a year to get his own Department of Homeland Security to dismantle the remaining pieces of the policy. (And it took former President Bush roughly a year before that to get the ball rolling.) But he did get it finished, and for that he deserves praise.
But the other three? They're all up to Congress, not the President.
Yes, you heard me right. The other three areas are all related to legislature passed by previous Congresses, so to fix or end them, Congress has to pass another law doing so.
Now, the Senate has had hearings on repealing "don't ask, don't tell", with common-sense testimony from the Secretary of Defense (a Republican holdover from the Bush Cabinet), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and decorated gay veterans of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the House looks set to start committee hearings on ENDA, now that both sides have agreed on the language of the proposed legislation. So they're moving right along -- at least, as fast as either house of Congress is used to moving.
And the President is doing what he should be doing -- sitting back and letting the legislative branch of the government do its job. With, of course, an occasional supportive comment.
So, back to GSE's poll. For that stuff that the President can do, he's doing pretty well. I'd like him to speak out more often in favor of ENDA, and repealing DOMA and DADT, and so would many more people, both gay and straight. A little more use of the "bully pulpit" couldn't hurt, although the President can't rely on a solid base of supportive Democratic legislators in both houses, and his speaking out might not do as much good as it could, and might even hurt a little. But all things considered, on this score I'd say he's doing well.
And for that stuff that only Congress can do? They're coming along, but they're not fast and bold enough. (Then again, Congress is rarely fast or bold, let alone both together.) So if the question were also being asked about Congress, I'd go with option B (not fast or bold enough).
The results of both those polls would make for some interesting reading by our political leaders in Washington.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Work. I got a call from the Census Bureau on Monday. I took their application test about two weeks ago in Bound Brook (I scored 100%, by the way), and now they were calling to offer me a job, if I wanted it.
The job title is "enumerator". That's the fancy (and short) way of saying "guy who goes from door to door gathering information because people didn't send back their Census forms". It's a 40-hour week, from 8:30 to 4:30; it pays $18/hour plus $.50/mile for any driving I have to do; and it can be for up to eight weeks. (There's no guarantee that I'll actually work eight weeks; if they run out of work for me to do, the job is over.) And I have to show up for four days of training.
Reader, I said yes.
Training starts April 27th.
In the meantime, Bill-the-honeybear is working for the Census this week as an interviewer, after working as an enumerator and as a canvasser (one of the people who checks the Census rolls against actual buildings where people might live). And he's been asked if he would like to continue, with yet again another job. Stay tuned.
The job title is "enumerator". That's the fancy (and short) way of saying "guy who goes from door to door gathering information because people didn't send back their Census forms". It's a 40-hour week, from 8:30 to 4:30; it pays $18/hour plus $.50/mile for any driving I have to do; and it can be for up to eight weeks. (There's no guarantee that I'll actually work eight weeks; if they run out of work for me to do, the job is over.) And I have to show up for four days of training.
Reader, I said yes.
Training starts April 27th.
In the meantime, Bill-the-honeybear is working for the Census this week as an interviewer, after working as an enumerator and as a canvasser (one of the people who checks the Census rolls against actual buildings where people might live). And he's been asked if he would like to continue, with yet again another job. Stay tuned.
Of Property Taxes and Education: If you live in New Jersey, there's always one thing with which your fellow Jerseyans agree with you: your property taxes are too high. And, come election time, there's always one thing every politician will agree with: property taxes are too high, and if you elect them, something will be done about it.
Well, bullshit.
Property taxes are set by, and are collected at, the local level. Don't believe me? Just look at your tax bill next time and see to whom the check is being written. Bet'cha a nickel it ain't the State of New Jersey. So any state politician who says they're going to reduce property taxes? They can't. Not unless the state legislature and the Governor find the political will to tell the 600+ separate localities in New Jersey that from now on all the property taxes will be set by and collected by the state. Think that'll happen? If you do, I'll save you a seat at the first snowball fight in Hell.
Property taxes are set by the local municipalities, with input from you. Don't believe me? OK. Look at your tax bill and find how much is set aside for education, how much for running the town, etc. Now look at the next sample ballot you recieve -- you should be getting one every year -- and look to see if there are any public questions about raising money for any of those categories from the tax bill. Usually those questions are about giving more money, not about giving less (or even standing still, for that matter). So: if you vote "yes" on the public question, then you are automatically giving the municipality permission to raise your tax bill to pay for it.
Oh, and by the way, education -- your public school system -- takes the lion's share of just about every town budget in the state.
Now here's the fun part. The state constitution gives the state the responsibility for providing a "thorough and efficient education" to every school-age child in the state. The state Supreme Court ruled that, because property taxes were inherently unequal between and among the towns, they couldn't be used to fund education. So the state Legislature and the Governor have had to find ways to fund education that weren't unequal and illegal. Thus was born, in part, the Property Tax Rebate. Not that your taxes get any smaller, oh, no. But some of that money you gave the town comes back to you from the state. And where does the state get its money? Why, from you, of course.
Me, I'd rather see a smaller property tax bill and let the state make up the difference to the towns. Actually, I'd rather see more school district consolidation in order to effect economies of scale and thus lower some of the costs of that thorough and efficient education.
Anyway, the state, as we're told, is fiscally in the crapper. Money for education just isn't in the state's purse right now, so aid to municipalities is being cut. And because aid is being cut, and this being a recession and all, people are losing their jobs. And some of those people are teachers.
Don't get me wrong. I've had mostly good experiences with New Jersey teachers my entire life, and while I didn't get along with all of them, they all had a hand in making me the man I am today. I also have friends who are teachers, so I know from them just how hard teaching as a profession actually is these days.
But I've been listening to the arguments about education budget cuts. And all too often, the argument I've heard most is, "Oh, no, teachers are going to be fired! We can't let this happen!"
Y'know what? I've been downsized out of two jobs, one after 20 years of service, the other after 7 1/2 years. I don't recall anyone wailing about how my being let go just couldn't be allowed to happen. And in a recession, I think one of the most obscene things of all is believing that any profession is too sacrosanct not to be affected by layoffs.
What I haven't been hearing -- because the discussion has been allowed to be about how awful it is that an educator should be let go -- is what adults would be talking about right now: namely, just what does constitute "thorough and efficient education", and how can we fund that. What's educationally important to us? What kind of arguments can be made in favor of having classes in certain subjects and not in others? What sacrifices am I being asked to make -- and what sacrifices are school employees being asked to make? Most importantly, how we can stop being "the town vs. the school" and start being "the town and the school working together"?
And I guess, when it comes down to it, the basic question of all is: when can we start helping our children by acting, at last, like adults?
Well, bullshit.
Property taxes are set by, and are collected at, the local level. Don't believe me? Just look at your tax bill next time and see to whom the check is being written. Bet'cha a nickel it ain't the State of New Jersey. So any state politician who says they're going to reduce property taxes? They can't. Not unless the state legislature and the Governor find the political will to tell the 600+ separate localities in New Jersey that from now on all the property taxes will be set by and collected by the state. Think that'll happen? If you do, I'll save you a seat at the first snowball fight in Hell.
Property taxes are set by the local municipalities, with input from you. Don't believe me? OK. Look at your tax bill and find how much is set aside for education, how much for running the town, etc. Now look at the next sample ballot you recieve -- you should be getting one every year -- and look to see if there are any public questions about raising money for any of those categories from the tax bill. Usually those questions are about giving more money, not about giving less (or even standing still, for that matter). So: if you vote "yes" on the public question, then you are automatically giving the municipality permission to raise your tax bill to pay for it.
Oh, and by the way, education -- your public school system -- takes the lion's share of just about every town budget in the state.
Now here's the fun part. The state constitution gives the state the responsibility for providing a "thorough and efficient education" to every school-age child in the state. The state Supreme Court ruled that, because property taxes were inherently unequal between and among the towns, they couldn't be used to fund education. So the state Legislature and the Governor have had to find ways to fund education that weren't unequal and illegal. Thus was born, in part, the Property Tax Rebate. Not that your taxes get any smaller, oh, no. But some of that money you gave the town comes back to you from the state. And where does the state get its money? Why, from you, of course.
Me, I'd rather see a smaller property tax bill and let the state make up the difference to the towns. Actually, I'd rather see more school district consolidation in order to effect economies of scale and thus lower some of the costs of that thorough and efficient education.
Anyway, the state, as we're told, is fiscally in the crapper. Money for education just isn't in the state's purse right now, so aid to municipalities is being cut. And because aid is being cut, and this being a recession and all, people are losing their jobs. And some of those people are teachers.
Don't get me wrong. I've had mostly good experiences with New Jersey teachers my entire life, and while I didn't get along with all of them, they all had a hand in making me the man I am today. I also have friends who are teachers, so I know from them just how hard teaching as a profession actually is these days.
But I've been listening to the arguments about education budget cuts. And all too often, the argument I've heard most is, "Oh, no, teachers are going to be fired! We can't let this happen!"
Y'know what? I've been downsized out of two jobs, one after 20 years of service, the other after 7 1/2 years. I don't recall anyone wailing about how my being let go just couldn't be allowed to happen. And in a recession, I think one of the most obscene things of all is believing that any profession is too sacrosanct not to be affected by layoffs.
What I haven't been hearing -- because the discussion has been allowed to be about how awful it is that an educator should be let go -- is what adults would be talking about right now: namely, just what does constitute "thorough and efficient education", and how can we fund that. What's educationally important to us? What kind of arguments can be made in favor of having classes in certain subjects and not in others? What sacrifices am I being asked to make -- and what sacrifices are school employees being asked to make? Most importantly, how we can stop being "the town vs. the school" and start being "the town and the school working together"?
And I guess, when it comes down to it, the basic question of all is: when can we start helping our children by acting, at last, like adults?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
