Republican Socialism And The Workers Buyout

In this earlier post, I likened blogs/ online journals to letters-to-the-editor printed in local newspapers.  However, those of us on the internets have a huge advantage, in that we can respond immediately to those things which set our teeth on edge.  For instance, this accusatory letter from Kim Sinrud appeared in today's Bozeman Daily Chronicle, accusing the Democrats in the Montana legislature of leaving "$8.2 million dollars that could have been in your paychecks on the table!"

Alarm! Woe! Panic! Democrats hate workers!

Uhhh, no.  Ya' see, the devil's truly in the details here, and since our good friend Kim failed to examine them, I will put forth slightly more effort.  The Montana House passed a state worker pay increase that was negotiated between the Governor's office and the state worker's union. 

The proposal would give affected employees the greater of a 3.5 percent raise or $1,005 in the first year, and either a 4 percent or $1,118 increase, whichever is larger, in the second year. The first raise would take effect Oct. 1.

Republicans attempted to change the plan to one that they said would give larger raises to the lower-paid employees, but Democrats successfully argued that the Legislature should honor the negotiated deal struck between the state and unions.

What apparently has Kim's knickers in a twist is that the Democratic plan as passed would not give some people as much a boost in pay as the proposed Republican plan.  Kim finds this an evil, and attempts to fault the Democrats in the legislature of being anti-worker.  I can only assume that Kim would have benefited somewhat more under the Republican plan, (hence the vehemence), and because of that , she misses a few facts that color the situation in a somewhat less partisan way.  For a fair overview of what the two plans offer, please refer to this article from January, as presented well by Matt Singer.

Before the committee made any decisions on the bill, Rep. Pat Wagman, R-Livingston, testified that the GOP had a better idea, HB268. Wagman told the committee Republicans would try to change that bill to make it give all state employees a flat raise of $3,644 by 2007.

That would make the bill cost the state a few million dollars more than the plan agreed upon by the unions, but it would give people at the bottom rung of state pay even bigger raises than those envisioned in the plan negotiated between the governor and the unions. Workers making more than $52,050 would receive smaller raises.

I do not contest Kim's claim that 72% of the state's lowest paid workers would have received more of a raise.  I am curious, though, how many people is that?  What jobs do they hold?  And why does Kim leap willy nilly into a false statement like this:

Do you think the unions would really object to an amendment that would give 72 percent of their members more money?

It appears, in Kim's world, as if 72% of the lowest paid workers for the state equals 72% of the union members.  This is obviously not true.  Since she's obviously just an angry lefty poorly paid state worker, we can forgive her overstatement of the facts, for now.

It also appears, that what the Republican's had planned was lower raises for the higher paid jobs, and higher raises for the lower paid jobs.  I've no difficulty with this, in practicum, but isn't that like socialist redistribution of wealth?  Kim calls the low paid workers "the hard-working" workers.  There is no support for that claim, any more than there is evidence that those making more than $52,000/year are not hard working.  On what basis does this redistribution of wealth reside, I wonder.  A state representative from Bozeman, who we'll get back to later, said "The hard-working, blue collar people should get the raises,''.  Why?  Have Montana state Republican legislators become communists recently?  Is socialism now a conservative value in Montana?

All snark aside, this is nothing more than a blindly emotional appeal to buy the sentiment (and votes) of Montana state employees.  There is no other justification for this base appeal to the image of the "common working man".  A pay raise, negotiated by the Governor and the the workers and their representatives isn't good enough, because it doesn't favor enough those who can be made to feel angry at the political party in control of the state.  Silly, silly Kim.  You call a rather generous pay increase (well deserved, I've not any doubt) "smacking of partisan politics", all the while the opposition was proposing an ideologically offensive alternative just to garner favor.  I'm not very sorry for pointing out that anyone who would accuse the congressional Democrats of partisanship for favoring fairness is either an idiot, or a total partisan shill.  And I don't think you're an idiot Kim.

The most blatant blind-spot in Kim's little treatise is this:  I pay those raises.  Yup, me; me and every other property owner and income tax payer in the state.  The $8 million that Kim cries could have gone to pay these noble workers comes out of MY pocket.  The Republican state pay plan would have cost more money than the plan negotiated and endorsed as it was passed by the Montana House of Representatives.  She can ask the "workers" of Montana to remember how the Congress screwed them out of money to which she feels they were entitled, and I will ask the tax payers of Montana to remember that it's your fricking money that she has laid claim to.

A disclaimer and a final observation:  I work amidst a bevy of state employees, on a college campus, right here in Bozeman.  I am, however, not a state employee.  I have many friends, and even a relative or two, who are state employees.  I clearly understand their urge to be payed more, having dealt with a wage freeze for ~ 3 years as they have.  But somebody has to pay that, and that somebody (me) would be better advised to look at the fairness of the raise, before wailing over the partisan hackery of Kim's little outburst.

The writer of this angry, unrealistic, and partisan op-ed is named Kim Sinrud.  The originator of the communist quote "The hard-working, blue collar people should get the raises" is one John Sinrud, a Republican representative from Bozeman.  Hmmmm.  I wonder if there's a relation?

Update:  Here you go, the face of socialism in the Montana Legislature.  Kim is apparently his wife, and didn't take too kindly to her husband's commie ideals being dissed by those evil democrats.  Not that I'd think there might be a bit of public self promotion going on here or anything; nothing of the sort, certainly.  She must have just taken offense at her man's socialist ideology being so dissed while giving working folks a raise.  Perfectly understandable, I'm sure.

Comments

[Linkmeister]

Why is there no emoticon for sarcasm? I envison a twisting blade, with black drops (apostrophes, maybe?), used at the end of paragraphs. Hmm. Where's that "dagger" special function key?

[-=e=-]

Hmmm... and did Mrs. Sinrud write this, or did an aide of her husband's?

And how did she feel about the 87 billion taken out of our pockets to finance a war under false pretenses?

Every time I hear a 'Pubby whine about "money out of their pocket" on frivolous things (like feeding poor kids in school, for example), that question always comes to mind.

[Sheila N]

I couldn't have said it better!

[twilightsol]

Rob just to let you know. Reverend Wildmon is going to be here tommorow. the students are organzing a protest.