Some recent comments of those in positions of power and influence reflect the thinking that blocks real economic recovery.

This from a congressman who worried that the government might not be spending enough to get the economy going — following the debt ceiling deal — as it has so successfully the last few years:

“This idea of pulling money out of the economy in the next couple of years is just bad economics.”

Wonder what he thinks about taxes? After all, taxes take money out of the economy. So, if the government takes the money away from earners, that’s OK. But if they save or spend it, whoa Nellie! (No, I am not saying all taxes are bad or that new taxes should never, ever happen.)

Unsurprisingly, this was the same attitude in a recent New York Times editorial. But it still is interesting to see the fervor they hold for government intervention.

“What the economy needs is real government investment to support demand and create new jobs.”

Amazing. They ignore private enterprise, seeing government as a creator of jobs and driver of demand. They relegate the ideas of free markets, entrepreneurship, private business and, by extension, ownership to also-rans.

Then they find someone who is a Republican – to show the obvious bipartisanship of their absolutely correct position – to agree.

“As … a Republican from Kalispell, Mont., told the pollsters: ‘Unless you have working people, you don’t have revenue from taxes. If you cut spending, jobs will be eliminated and you won’t get any revenue. Every dollar spent creates jobs.’”

Think about that second sentence. Following this reasoning, the government takes taxes from people and companies to pay for jobs. Those jobs generate taxes that are paid to the government. Thus, if the government spends fewer tax dollars, there will be fewer tax-funded jobs that are paying taxes to the government.

This circular thinking is considered a way to grow the economy. It would be comical if it wasn’t so costly and pointless.

Is there a better way to contrast the idea that it’s better to grow the pie than to just slice it up in infinite ways?

Ohio’s SB5, changing collective-bargaining for public employees, is difficult, no doubt about it. While I have only been the member of a union for a few months in my years of working, it’s understandable why people unionize.

Let’s be honest. While all employees are not saints, neither is all management. Just as unions have at times gone too far in their demands, management has done the same.

Still, it’s hard to believe that without substantial change, whether of collective bargaining, government programs, or outright elimination of some duties that government has undertaken over the years, we will not get our fiscal house in order.

While there seems to be some doubt whether government employees are at or above their private-sector counterparts in pay, there seems to be little confusion in the area of benefits – both how much is to be received and the percentage of contributions. Government employees look to have better benefits even as they contribute less toward those benefits.

And job security is generally greater. They accepted somewhat lower pay, at least in earlier days, in exchange for that security, we’ve been told.

Now, there have been many illustrations of unions agreeing to wage/benefit cuts/freezes in order to help difficult budget situations. They should be commended for doing so. However, that this is seen as such a great contribution underscores their impact on public budgets.

Civil service laws are ignored, too, when unions make their case that only they protect their members. Besides, should SB5 pass, any efforts by administrators that are seen as making life more dangerous or onerous for public employees will be front-page news. While enough voters might give SB5 the benefit of the doubt, they will surely recoil if it is used punitively.

But, ultimately, it seems SB5 is about who is in charge. Is it the elected officials and administrators, who are to be agents of the “owners” of the government, the citizens and taxpayers? Or is it the public employees — more specifically in this case, the public-employee unions?

While all of “Stretching the School Dollar” is a fascinating read, the following is especially germane:

“The influence of teachers and teacher unions in local school politics has important consequences for educational productivity and for efforts to improve it in response to fiscal pressures. In the majority of school districts nationwide which engage in formal contract negotiations with unionized employees, the collective bargaining process provides teachers unions with a unique venue through which to shape district policy.

“Topics typically covered in teacher collective bargaining agreements range from the bread-and-butter issues of salaries and benefits to procedures for teacher evaluation, allowances for preparation time, limitations on student contact time and class size, and a host of other work rules that structure everyday practices in the district’s schools.

“Indeed, the 199 contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January 2005 spanned, on average, 105 pages. Their sheer scope ensures that virtually any attempt to change an established policy or practice will conflict with the contract in some way and therefore require union approval. Accordingly, even researchers who downplay the role of teacher unions as a proactive force shaping district policy generally acknowledge that they have the ability to veto major policy changes.”

And this comes after a section explaining the political power that teachers and unions have in elections. Following it is a section that describes what happened in New York City when coffers were flush. The then-chancellor negotiated, over several years, contract changes that included “shorter summers, a six-period work day, streamlined grievance procedures, and a reinstatement of a policy under which teachers patrolled school lunchrooms.”

See, collective bargaining works. (Though one wonders how teachers ever got out of patrolling lunchrooms.) Or does it?

“Yet he was only able to convince United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten to go along with these changes by agreeing to increase teacher salaries by more than 40 percent….

“In a subsequent negotiation, [the superintendent] won union approval for a modest merit pay program for schools serving low-income students only by agreeing to modify pension policies such that a twenty-five-year veteran could retire at age fifty-five, rather than sixty-two, with 50 percent of her salary guaranteed for life.”

SB5 might not be the best approach. But unless changes are quite substantial, we will continue down the path of ever increasing, i.e. unsustainable, costs. At some point, that path will end. As many see it today, it already has.

This was a recent op-ed in the newspaper. Thought I’d post it here since passenger rail was brought up, again, in Monday’s State of the Union address.

Gov. Ted Strickland’s look-back exit interview with the Dispatch points out the substantial philosophical disagreements between liberals and conservatives.

Strickland was asked: “Why didn’t we hear you talk more about the positive accomplishments of your administration?” The answer was fascinating on two levels.

Strickland said that focus groups did not respond well to a positive message. Wow. So, good or bad, he didn’t have a chance? There was nothing he did or could have done that would have translated into re-election?

The second part of his answer pointed to the philosophical divide. “We would hold focus groups and say that, ‘Did you realize that undergraduate college tuition was frozen for two years in Ohio?’ They didn’t believe it.”

This is an excellent example of the misguided economic thinking of liberals. Having the state simply decree that college tuition is frozen is nothing more than a temporary, and political, response. It eventually will have to give way and does nothing to address rising tuition costs, such as government tuition subsidies that allow colleges to keep from making difficult decisions.

Maybe that’s what voters believed.

The saddest day of my being governor was the day that we gave $400 million to Florida and California (in federal funds to develop passenger rail in Ohio). I see no rational basis for that at all. The federal debt’s not going to be smaller as a result. But these states are going to have almost $400 million that will create lots of jobs.

We “gave” nothing to Florida and California. These are tax dollars to be paid now or later for what many consider to be boondoggle projects that will cost more, be used less, require more subsidies, and take longer to construct than current projections. But Strickland sees “no rational basis” to say no. Is there a better example of why our state and nation are in these fiscal predicaments?

Strickland unbelievably claims that “I think the media, the public in general, have failed to adequately acknowledge the severity of the economic recession.” But that out-of-touch comment fits in with his government-as-savior narrative and his following statement, that he’s “just amazed at people who seem to have at least an average level of intelligence continuing to criticize the president and the Democrats in Congress, for example, for saving the auto industry. I mean, I just don’t understand that thinking.”

I have to admit that at the time I was deeply disturbed by the possible loss of General Motors. In addition to the jobs that would be lost, it would have been piercing to our national pride to lose such an American icon.

However, I was for a last-ditch loan that GM, and Chrysler, would have to use to get themselves out of trouble, trouble caused by poor management and union excesses (exacerbated by some government policies) that had led to GM’s death grip.

(Admittedly this loan would have gone beyond what conservatives normally would see as government’s role. But since the economy was in such pain and Chrysler had once before taken a loan and turned itself around, it seemed that these two could do so if they could make the tough decisions.)

But what ensued made a mockery of each company’s ability to dig itself out. Also tossed to the wind were the laws governing bankruptcy. The federal government did not save the auto industry. It propped up GM and Chrysler by diktat.

Who knows? Maybe the voters – at least those, as Strickland said, with “at least an average level of intelligence” – understood what a sham the government’s “rescue” of GM and Chrysler was and that led them to vote out Strickland and his party in historic numbers.

Nah. That doesn’t make any sense, according to Strickland.

Change is coming to the power government-employee unions have and I suspect Ohio will be a flashpoint as John Kasich becomes governor.

Monday was a busy day for highlighting the need for reform (or siege, or dismantling, depending on one’s perspective) of laws defining the public-union and government relationship and/or what government leaders push for in contracts.

On Monday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty had a column in The Wall Street Journal, “Government Unions vs. Taxpayers”. It’s been a cozy relationship between the public-employee unions and the officials who have given them what they wanted. The pols did so to tap into the unions’ backing come election time. So, this is not something where the blame can be put solely on the unions.

“Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default.”

We know the costs are running states into the ground. There is little doubt that something has got to give in order to get things back on a fiscally sound footing.

On the same day was this story in The Dispatch: “Public-sector unions in Ohio soon may be under siege”. Overlooking the slanted and heated headline (sometimes it’s just about what will fit in the column space), the story talks about how politicians from John Kasich to city councilmen are talking about the lock these public unions have on the public purse.

Also yesterday, Ohio Politics Online pointed out the Dispatch story, a story in the Plain Dealer and comments in another blog about the situation in Ohio, which is repeated in many other states. “Collective bargaining is clearly going to be a big public policy debate come January.”

On Dec. 7, a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article was headlined: “Walker looks at showdown with state employee unions”. Sub-head: “Governor-elect may try to gut bargaining power”. One example of the controversy any such moves will stir: the story had 844 online comments as of today.

This is not to denigrate any public employee or the important services that are provided. It’s about getting budgets of today, and obligations of the future, in line with economic reality and the burden of the taxpayer.

And one other thing. We often hear that we have to pay higher taxes to the government for a couple of reasons. For one, those with a lot of money should give more to the government because, the premise is, it will see that the money will be equitably distributed to those in need.

Second, since, this premise goes, the government is composed of altruistic people whose only goal is to do good, as opposed to private enterprise, which is of course dedicated to making the lives of everyone worse in the sole pursuit of more money for management and/or shareholders, taxpayers should give the government more money to protect us.

But if government is all good, how could it be possible that government employees need protection from themselves, i.e., the government?

And there’s the rub. Pawlenty makes a brilliant point about this:

“The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.”

Considering the intensity Kasich will bring to the governor’s office, and the public-union onslaught he has already faced, interesting times are ahead for Ohio. The Kasich campaign slogans of a new day and a new way are on their way to becoming a reality.

This is one post I didn’t want to write. Indeed, I’ve been avoiding it in the hopes that things would change and the primary focus of it could shift from still looking for a full-time job to having found one. Alas, it was not to be.

Two years ago this month the phone rang at my desk. “Could you come in to see the publisher?” It wasn’t like I could say “no,” but at least they were trying to be nice about it. I would be one of several people in the building getting such a call that day. And this was just the latest round at the newspaper, owned by a chain, where I worked. There were layoffs before mine; there were layoffs after.

But I never thought I’d still be in search of full-time employment two years later. Yet, here I am, as are a lot of Americans.

I have great experience. I began as a photojournalist, then reporter, followed by city editor during a nine-year stint on a daily newspaper.

Moving to a new position, I served as a media relations director for a Catholic diocese for one year. For nine years after that, I was the editor and then managing editor of the diocesan weekly newspaper, writing editorials, managing a small staff, creating and overseeing budgets, hiring, upgrading computer hardware and software, starting a Web site, helping with page production, planning for special sections and production of the diocesan directory.

About the time I thought it was time to move on, an opening became available at the same newspaper I left before going to the diocese. It was a newly established editor position and one in which, among other duties, I’d still be writing editorials, albeit those agreed to by the editorial board.

It was at that newspaper the second time that I got that call.

Then there is education. I graduated, ahem, a few years ago with my bachelor’s degree in art. I started out in photography/photojournalism. I got a full-time job after graduating from the two-year Art Institute of Pittsburgh — when that was its only location. But it soon became apparent that I would need a four-year degree if I ever expected to move up.

A few years ago, with the growing popularity of the Internet and high-speed connections, the decline, if not the death, of newspapers was within sight. I felt I needed additional education for more career possibilities and so I made the decision to go back to graduate school. My ongoing interest in business, economics, and management made the choice of pursuing an MBA obvious. I earned it in 2007.

So, I’ve got a successful employment record of increasing responsibilities coupled with a strong education. But it hasn’t seemed to help.

But I have not been collecting unemployment all this time, nor have I not been working. I did collect unemployment the first six months after I lost my job as I looked for work. But when that was up, neither wanting to, nor really knowing whether I even could, extend collection of this money, I took a part-time job as a meat clerk for a major grocery chain.

It was interesting work and the people were great. But, because of the very low pay and other factors, I decided to leave it after several months. Since then, I have been serving as a substitute teacher in grades K to 12. I’ve always enjoyed learning and school so this is a natural extension.

We’ve been fortunate that my wife is working and we have some savings/investments. Still, substitute teaching for me is not a long-term solution. Besides, I’m more than ready to get back into the full-time swing of things.

Well, back at it tomorrow. All we can do is keep on keeping on.

(By the way, suggestions, ideas, wisdom are welcome. Post a comment here or follow me on Twitter at mmoretti_com and message me. Thanks.)

The response to Governor-elect Kasich’s decision on passenger rail in Ohio has been instructive. It’s an excellent example of the divide between liberals and conservatives, between expansive government and limited government.

At stake, from the left’s perspective, is $400 million “given” to Ohio by the feds. It’s to be used for high-speed rail connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, as part of a wider fed plan to bring rail to the masses nationwide.

Kasich, seeing yet another big-government project that has a high probability of not fulfilling its many promises, wants to either use the money for something else (maybe roads and bridges) or have it stay in Washington to be applied to the federal deficit.

Liberals are apoplectic. “Give up” $400 million? Stop high speed rail and, by definition, doom Ohio to (continue) to use cars? And what about all those jobs that will be created? Give it back? Is Kasich crazy?

This is like watching the gubernatorial debates between Ted Strickland and Kasich. There was the sense that from Strickland’s point of view, government was the great purveyor of jobs. For Kasich, it was clear that he saw private enterprise, particularly small businesses, as the real engine of job growth.

Government-built rail highlights this difference again.

As the critics lash out at Kasich for his position, they brush aside many questions. How speedy is this train likely to be? Is there any pressing need for daily commutes by a substantial number of people between these cities? What will the ultimate cost be? Will it need to be subsidized for – like – ever? Will it be built in the time-frame estimated?

But the widest chasm is created when the charge of jobs lost is thrown. If it’s just about jobs, why rail? Why not, say, hospitals. Plenty of construction jobs, followed by medical jobs, all to help sick people.

Why not bike trails? We could put a lot of people to work doing that. But what about the weather? Well, let’s make them covered bike trails, that would mean even more jobs. Then we could build special bicycles for these trails that would make it easier for anybody to ride them. This, in turn, will lead to a healthier population as it gets the exercise it needs. Thus we would attain the Holy Grail — lower health care costs. It’s a win-win-win-win….

Or maybe we could build more coal-fired electricity generation plants. We could install the latest in  environmental protection, even sequestering carbon dioxide underground. All of this would create jobs, jobs, jobs.

Silly? Why? It would create jobs.

And where does it end? Why should it end, if all one sees is the government “creating” jobs?

And other than Kasich, nobody seems to acknowledge that this money is not simply “found” money the Treasury came by unawares. These are tax dollars taken from citizens, or borrowed against younger citizens and their children to be.

At a time of record deficits and national debt, maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t go through with this project that has future boondoggle written all over it. Can anybody say Amtrak?

Kasich visits LC

On Friday, Kasich visited Licking County, part of which he represented as a congressman. The football game he was referring to was the Newark Wildcats game following the rally.

It’s probably scary for current Governor Ted Strickland, his strategists and anyone in the Democratic Party involved with getting the message out to contemplate what they would have done if they were unable to utter the name of John Kasich together with Wall Street. This is about “Ohio values, not Wall Street values” rails the kindly “Ted’s just Ted” minister from southern Ohio.

Think of television writers who, when the ideas are gone, use the eternal fallback: sex. Just like it seems every character on TV, real and fictional, is having careless and carefree sex with many other people, the Dems want you to think Kasich’s sole mission as a member of the now failed “Wall Street” firm Lehman Brothers was to happily destroy the working man whenever possible. And, while doing so, he personally benefited from big paychecks, big bonuses and big perks.

Now, I have no animosity toward Governor Strickland. But his constant pounding on the perceived “Wall Street” values of Kasich is as insulting as it is simple-minded. It says more about his character than it does about Kasich’s.

Not that those facing Strickland are above such attacks. However, the volleys lobbed at Strickland and company mostly revolve around Ohio’s economic performance during his term. As unfair at times as it must seem that Ohio’s job loss is placed squarely at Strickland’s feet, it is what it is.

Besides, if during Strickland’s term the same amount of jobs lost were gained, he and his supporters would be taking full and unabashed credit. This would be unfair, too, but that wouldn’t stop him, or any other candidate, from doing so.

Ohio’s situation now, and the last few years, and how we move forward, these are the real issues. While no doubt both men in the race would be gracious dinner guests or stop to help a lost child, the real question is: How will they approach governing Ohio the next four years?

It’s clear to me that John Kasich is the better choice. The two men come from ideologically different perspectives. In short, Kasich appreciates the challenges of business creation, expansion and competition. These are what create real jobs that do not find their sustenance from the forced confiscation of money from taxpayers. (Not that taxes are not needed. Since we need government, we need to pay for it.)

No doubt, Strickland understands this, but his appreciation of it is lacking. He looks at job creation as a function of government over private enterprise. One evidence of this — and he shares this with many in his party — is the ability to continually bash businesses that do not perform the way he believes they should, even as he professes the desire to nurture “proper” businesses.

But, as Kasich knows, business-created jobs are what we have to concentrate on. It is these jobs that best represent the American spirit of freedom and entrepreneurship. They represent being allowed to reap the rewards of effort, for owners and workers.

In Ohio, one of the greatest examples of this is Honda. Despite not being unionized, Honda and its employees have done well in America’s heartland, even as the poorly run and unionized GM and Chrysler fell hard.

There are other less obvious but no less important advantages of allowing entrepreneurial spirit to flourish in regards to jobs and business creation. One, the types of businesses created or expanded send signals to the entrepreneurs and employees of tomorrow. That is, they can answer: What should I be studying or working on now to improve my chances of a productive future? Propping up this or that industry because it’s preferred delays the adjustments needed.

Meanwhile, as these efforts in the private sector flourish, government reaps the rewards as the pie from which taxes are drawn grows. Thus, without a raise in tax rates, the government can collect more money. At the same time, by letting the private sector do what it does best, the government can concentrate its resources more efficiently and effectively on its core responsibilities.

Indeed, if the economy can grow enough, it might even be possible to cut or, dare it be said, eliminate some taxes. Which, in turn, helps anyone who has to send part of a paycheck to Columbus or Washington. (Hmmm, sound familiar?)

Gazing out 2, 4, 8, 10 years, the future looks better for Ohio if we have the leadership now that sets the stage for a renewal of the Buckeye state. Only by encouraging, unleashing, energizing, and, at times, goading,  private (and public) sector efforts today will a new Ohio emerge.

Advantage: Kasich.

Timothy Geithner received high praise from former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for his role in battling the financial collapse. Paulson said Geithner was a calm, effective voice while he was at the New York Fed during the crisis.

Indeed, the market cheered when President Barack Obama appointed him Treasury secretary.

And one of the reasons I stopped listening to talk radio – though it’s really only listen-to-the-host-go-on-and-on-about-the-same-things-radio: the attacks on Geithner almost before he even got started. (Just as off-putting were the silly critiques about his appearance.)

But any willingness to see where he would try to take the nation’s finances has been seriously constrained by his remarks to Bloomberg this week. He must, understandably, follow direction from the top. But some of his statements to Bloomberg were of the political hack variety, not those of a serious student of fiscal policy.

The most disappointing was this, at 5:59 minutes in:

What Republicans in Congress want to do, is they want us to go out and borrow $700 billion from our children, from investors around the world, and give that money to, again, the richest 2 percent of Americans….

He repeated this claim several times. It’s shameful, especially since he must know it to be disingenuous.

• The Republicans do not want to borrow from our children and investors around the world. In fact, they have been saying just the opposite. Most of the country has been saying so, including many Democrats, a point made by the interviewer but swept aside by Geithner.
• Not allowing a tax cut to expire does not equate into the necessity to borrow $700 billion. Stratospheric spending drives borrowing.
• Not taking additional taxes from the richest 2 percent of Americans is not giving them anything. It’s not taking more from them. Just as not taking additional taxes from the middle class is not giving them anything.

The best approach is to keep all the tax cuts in place, but I’m somewhat ambivalent about the tax cuts for the top 2 percent expiring. The biggest objection to this would be what impact it would have on small business. However, this is a fuzzy area, with different sources making various claims about what small businesses would experience.

If it wouldn’t burden small businesses, it does not sound like a horrendous increase for the richest of Americans. Besides, as noted by Robert Stein, writing in National Affairs, current income-tax rates do not allow for the magnitude of incentives they did when Reagan took office:

Even starting from a top income-tax rate of nearly 40% (which we can expect once President Bush’s tax cuts expire in 2011), income taxes would have to go to zero – and not be replaced by any other tax system, like a sales tax – to generate the kind of positive work incentives the original Reagan cuts produced.

These are the kinds of arguments Secretary Geithner would present if he were being genuine, not the politically pandering, class-warfare jabs he offered up to Bloomberg.