Like Bush Obama Purports He Can Disobey the Law

The rule of law should be a cornerstone of every government. Yet President Obama has signed a law and issued a "signing statement" purporting that he doesn't need to obey portions of the law. Liberals and progressive criticized this practice by President Bush. It's not acceptable simply because President Obama has done it.

Here is the text of the statement and below it is a story about it:

However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com On Friday, President Obama signed a new war spending bill into law, but "not without taking a page from his predecessor and ignoring a few elements in the legislation," the Hill reports. Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill. President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative. The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Health Insurers Con Billions of Dollars from their Customers

Here is a story one isn't likely to hear about from our conservative and Libertarian friends and other private sector fetishists:

Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.

The report was part of a multi-pronged assault on the credibility of private insurers by Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). It came at a time when Rockefeller, President Obama and others are seeking to offer a public alternative to private health plans as part of broad health-care reform legislation. Health insurers are doing everything they can to block the public option.

How do insurance companies "avoid responsibility for sick people?" According to the article, by:

• "Us[ing] deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits"
  
• "Sell[ing] "junk" policies that do not cover needed care"
  
• "Mak[ing] paperwork confusing because '[insurance companies] realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it' if they think they have been shortchanged."
  

One particularly clever way that some insurers cheated their customers was uncovered by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo:

Cuomo described it last year as "a scheme by health insurers to defraud consumers by manipulating reimbursement rates."

Many Americans pay higher premiums for the freedom to go outside an insurer's network of doctors and hospitals. When they do, insurers typically pay a percentage of what they call the "usual and customary" rates for the services. How insurers determine the usual rates had long been opaque to consumers and difficult if not impossible for them to challenge.

As it turns out, insurers typically used numbers from Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of the big insurer UnitedHealth Group. Ingenix had an incentive to produce benchmarks that low-balled usual and customary rates and shifted costs from insurers to their customers, the report said.

Ingenix got its data from the same insurers that bought its benchmark information, the report said. Insurers that contributed information to Ingenix often "scrubbed" their data to remove high charges, and Ingenix further manipulated the numbers, removing valid high charges from its calculations, the report said.

Cuomo found that insurers under-reimbursed New York consumers by up to 28 percent….

Remember these systemic abuses in the private sector when you hear all the doctrinaire whining about how a government health care plan cannot be trusted. Trusting the private sector to take care of the health care needs of the American populace is the functional equivalent of trusting a known con man.

Tonight on Progressive Voices: Al Mascitti

Listen to “Progressive Voices” every Monday evening on WVUD, 91.3 FM from the University of Delaware in Newark, DE.

Tonight’s host: Marion Peleski and Dana Garrett

Note: Monday’s show starts at 6:30 p.m. and ends at 7:00. Listen from anywhere in the world you at http://www.wvud.org/listen_online.htm

* * *

Tonight I will talk to WDEL talk show host Al Mascitti. We will discuss local and national events and news.

Where is the Money for Violent Crimes Compensation Board Going?

When the Delaware Legislature's Joint Sunset Committee heard testimony that Delaware's Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB) was stingy in compensating the victims of violent crimes, I wasn't surprised. Although I never had any direct evidence verifying the claim, I had heard similar reports during the years I worked in Delaware's Family Court.

According to the News Journal, Rep. John Kowalko, a member of the Joint Sunset Committee,

became concerned about the Violent Crimes Compensation Board when he heard it wasn't coming close to giving out the funds allocated for victims. (link)

Given that the VCCB hasn't even come close to allocating the $6 million it has been given by the state for victims, the question naturally arises: where is the money going?

I have received information from two sources that have been in a position to know how some members of the VCCB have spent the agencies resources in the past. One source wishes to remain anonymous and the other is willing to divulge his identity. The latter's name is Fran Scholl. Mr. Scholl retired from the Wilmington Police force in 1994 and worked for the VCCB from 2000 – 2004.

Both of these sources made the following allegations:

• The Board members would routinely meet at a restaurant either prior or subsequent to a VCCB meeting and buy meals at the agency's expense (i.e., the taxpayers' expense).
  
• They also reimbursed themselves for their mileage to the VCCB meetings at the agency's expense.
  
• Some of the Board members signed up for 3-5 trips per year to conferences and conventions and "bragged" they had visited most of the 50 states on these trips. All travel related expenses (airfare, room, board, food, conference fees, etc.) were paid for by the agency (again, from taxpayer money).
  
• During these trips, the Board members were supposed to attend workshops and seminars but often they did not. Instead, "they signed up for tours and excursions."
  
• Mr. Scholl went on one of these trips to Colorado. Although he attended the seminars he signed up for, he never once saw any of the Board members attend the seminars they signed up for. They were "out on sightseeing tours," he said.
  
• After the Colorado trip, the Board members encouraged the trip goers to take a $65.00 per diem expense reimbursement even though the state maximum per diem expense reimbursement was less than that ($35.00 per diem, as Mr. Scholl recalled).
  

Readers should bear in mind that the Board members of the VCCB are additionally paid an annual salary for very part time work. The salary is $10,000 per year. Also, Board members participate in the pension plan for state employees.

The current Board members are:

• Thomas Castaldi, Chairman
  
• Leah W. Betts, Vice Chairman (Milton city councilwoman and former vice chairwoman of the state Democratic Party)
  
• V. Lynn Gregory, Commissioner (wife of Wilmington Democratic Committee Chairman and former City Councilman Theo Gregory)
  
• Thaddeus Koston, Commissioner
  
• Stephanie I. Liguori, Commissioner (link)
  

If the allegations made by my sources are true, then serious questions can be raised about the VCCB's stewardship of the taxpayer funds given to them. Although I think occasional conference trips are important for some state employees to attend, a pattern of 3-5 trips per year strikes me as excessive. I believe that State Auditor Tom Wagner should look into these allegations and investigate the activities of the VCCB and how those activities are funded.

There are more dimensions to the issues raised in the News Journal article about the VCCB and other allegations made by my sources that I will explore in future posts here on Delaware Watch.

US Senate passes apology for slavery, segregation

It's about time!

clipped from news.yahoo.com The Senate has unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and racial segregation and sent the measure to the House. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin first introduced the measure years ago but wanted it passed Thursday on the eve of Juneteenth - a day of celebration commemorating the end of the Civil War and the release of African Americans from slavery. He said the House is to take it up soon and that a formal celebration will be held next month in the Capitol Rotunda. The resolution passed Thursday includes a disclaimer saying that nothing in it supports or authorizes reparations by the United States.

Pop Goes the Myth of the Superiority of Charter Schools

This will cause hand-wringing, weeping, wailing, and angry and sophistical comments:

On average, charter schools are not performing as well as their traditional public-school peers, according to a new study that is being called the first national assessment of these school-choice options. The study, conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, compared the reading and math state achievement test scores of students in charter schools in 15 states and the District of Columbia—amounting to 70 percent of U.S. charter school students—to those of their virtual "twins" in regular schools who shared with them certain characteristics.

I interrupted the flow of the findings so I could interject this comment: these results should surprise no one. There really isn't a rational reason to think that quasi-private schools should perform better than public schools. It's only a bunch of mystical market mumbo jumbo that makes people think so. So, read this and weep all you who tacitly root for the failure of the public school system:

The research found that 37 percent of charter schools posted math gains that were significantly below what students would have seen if they had enrolled in local traditional public schools. And 46 percent of charter schools posted math gains that were statistically indistinguishable from the average growth among their traditional public-school companions. That means that only 17 percent of charter schools have growth in math scores that exceeds that of their traditional public-school equivalents by a significant amount.

In reading, charter students on average realized a growth that was less than their public-school counterparts but was not as statistically significant as differences in math achievement, researchers said.

Here's the assessment of a weeper:

"We are worried by these results," Margaret Raymond, director of CREDO and lead author of the report, Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States, said at a news conference. "This study shows that we've got a 2-to-1 margin of bad charters to good charters."

Haters of public schools and teachers' unions, editorialists and radio talk show hosts who naively think that charter schools walk on water—I confess, I am laughing at you. Vindication feels so good.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Saying No To Vouchers (takepart.com)
• Obama Calls for Overhaul of Education System (nytimes.com)
• Urban Schools Need Better Teachers, Not Excuses, to Close the Education Gap (usnews.com)
• The Nature of Charter Schools Questioned in Illinois (delawarewatch.blogspot.com)

______________
The study can be found here.

I Love the Iranian People

I love the Iranian people. This video depicts why.

Peace Dying the Death of Numerous Qualifications

Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu set forth his proposals for settling the long-standing and deadly Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given that the proposals have been heard and sensibly rejected by the Palestinians before, they almost certainly are designed to derail a real effort of resolving the conflict.

FIRST. Just for the peace talks to resume, Netanyahu said "the moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank must agree to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people." Notice that the condition is no longer merely recognizing the right of Israel to exist, a condition that the "moderate Palestinians" have already met. Now the Palestinians must recognize Israel as "the homeland of the Jewish people." In other words, just to bring Israel to the bargaining table, the Palestinian leadership must agree in advance to disenfranchise 5 – 8 million Palestinians from the right to return to their homeland after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the 1967 6-day war. The removal of the Palestinians was itself a violation of international law:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. (4^th Geneva Convention, Article 49)

Given that only about 10% of the Palestinians have indicated that they would exercise their right of return to Israel if given the opportunity, the right of return has been largely seen as a bargaining chip by the Palestinians, a right they could forgo in exchange for other considerations (e.g. territorial). Netanyahu's insistence that the Palestinians effectively forgo that right before peace talks can begin can be seen as an attempt to stack the negotiation deck in Israel's favor.

SECOND. Just for the peace talks to resume, Netanyahu said that the moderate Palestinians must "fight the Islamic hardliners Hamas." In other words, just to talk peace with Israel the moderate Palestinians must engage in a civil war with Hamas. It is so preposterous, it is impossible to make it up.

THIRD. Netanyahu "insisted that Israel would never give up a united Jerusalem as its capital." That's a deal killer since it ignores the fact that Jerusalem is as an important a city to the Palestinians as it is to the Israelis. Besides, Israel's annexation of the whole of Jerusalem is contrary to international law.

FOURTH. A Palestinian state must be demilitarized. Netanyahu envisions a Palestinian state without any capacity to protect itself from aggression. Unbelievable.

FIFTH. A Palestinian state cannot be allowed to control its own airspace or borders. Presumably, Israel would "graciously" do that for them as they do now. Imagine that. How is a "state" truly a state if it does not control its own airspace and borders.

SIXTH. The illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank must continue to expand, although Netanyahu was a bit vague on that point:

"I do not wish to build new settlements or to confiscate lands to that end, but we have to allow the residents of the settlements to live normal lives," he said.

It's not clear if by "expand" Netanyahu means acquire additional territory by growing outwardly or expanding within their present boundaries (see a further discussion here). Either scenario, however, is moot because the existence of the settlements per se is illegal according to international law:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. (4^th Geneva Convention, Article 49)

The Israeli settlements are a transfer of Israel's population into territories it occupies. As such they are illegal and any debate about whether they should grow externally or internally is academic unless the Palestinians agree to forgo their 4^th Geneva Convention rights.

SEVENTH. Netanyahu said that "'effective security safeguards' would have to be in place, without specifying what they might be." But the article immediately and trenchantly adds:

Israeli military officers have long argued that without an Israeli military presence, the Fatah-controlled West Bank would quickly fall to the Iranian-backed Hamas….

In other words, Israel might want to continue its military presence within a Palestinian "state." Imagine that. The Palestinian people would live in a perpetual state of occupation. That is and should be a deal killer. ("Effective security safeguards" could easily also include Israel's continued control over many of the roads in the West Bank, which impedes the travel of the Palestinians within their own territory and is the source of considerable conflict.)

If readers are inclined to doubt that these conditions are not deal killers, consider the words of one of the spokespersons for the "moderate" Palestinians:

"This speech torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region," said Nabil Abu Rudeina, a spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President.

If Netanyahu doesn't want the existence of a Palestinian state (his historic position) but wants to create the appearance of being willing to resolve the issues between Israel and the Palestinians, he couldn't have made a better proposal than this one.

________________

Unless otherwise indicated the source for this post is here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US envoy to meet Palestinian leaders (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Why the U.S. Should Start Talking to Hamas (time.com)

Want a Job? Get in Line

Less than 1 job available for every 5 job seekers in the USA. So much for the theory that unemployment is a consequence of laziness.

The wealth generated by capitalism is more vertical (and less horizontal) than we sometimes think.

clipped from www.epi.org At the start of the recession in December 2007, there were 4.4 million job openings, but that number has declined dramatically. This morning’s data release by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in April job openings declined 102,000 to 2.5 million, a drop of over 42% since the start of the recession. The decline in job openings is occurring as more and more workers are losing their jobs, meaning that the prospects for finding a job once unemployed are worsening. There were 13.7 million unemployed workers in April, which means there were 5.4 unemployed workers for every available job. At the start of the recession, an unemployed worker had a much better chance of finding a job, with only 1.7 job seekers per job opening, but the line of applicants waiting for each job is now three times longer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Jobless rate rises, but pace slows (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Jobless climbs, pace slows (washingtonmonthly.com)

Adam Smith on a Soda Tax

"Sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation."

— Adam Smith,

"The Wealth of Nations," 1776

I would broaden it to a junk food tax (and, yes, I am a consumer of soda pop and an occasional bag of chips) and use that revenue to fund a national healthcare plan instead of the proposed unconscionable and hypocritical idea of taxing health care benefits. People shouldn't be taxed for what helps to keep them healthy (like access to health care) but for what they do that creates a cost for the rest of society (like the ailments that tend to result from consuming junk food). I consider a junk food tax analogous to a tax on liquor and alcohol and generally a no-brainer from a social policy perspective.

New Jersey Blogger Arrested for Inciting Violence

Another arguably dangerous nutcase has crawled out from the woodwork but this time into the hands of the police. This "hero's" issue of uncompromising principle is religious:

A New Jersey blogger who urged readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers and who suggested government officials should "obey the Constitution or die" surrendered Thursday on a charge of inciting violence.

Harold "Hal" Turner, a former radio talk show host from North Bergen who broadcasts commentary on his Web site, was angry over legislation that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches in Connecticut more control over their parish's finances. The bill, brought by state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Rep. Michael Lawlor, was withdrawn in March.

A weighty issue that—the relative control over a parish's finances.

Free speech fetishists will find it hard to render his words metaphorically:

On June 2, Turner wrote on his blog, turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com, that Catholics should "take up arms and put down this tyranny by force," and promised to post the lawmakers' home addresses.

"It is our intent to forment direct action against these individuals personally," Turner wrote. "These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."

Writing about police or prosecutors who may try to stop his cause, Turner wrote, "I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too."

But Turner has tried to spin the apparent meaning of his words:

Last week, Turner explained the posts as "crude political hyperbole uttered in a context which did not lend itself to imminent lawlessness."

Part of the problem is that Turner has been around the block before:

Turner's views have drawn scrutiny before. The FBI questioned him, but did not charge him with any crime, in 2005 after the mother and husband of U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow were found shot to death in Chicago. In an interview with The Associated Press at the time, Turner said he was questioned because two years earlier he had said on his radio show that Lefkow "was worthy of being killed."

Two years ago, police in New Jersey beefed up security for four state Supreme Court justices whose addresses Turner revealed in his Webcast "to show they can be gotten to." Turner released the information after the court ruled that gay couples were entitled to the same rights as married couples.

In 2007, he told the audience of his radio program that, "a well-placed bullet can solve a lot of problems." He was referring to former President George W. Bush. Turner has also written that "we need to start SHOOTING AND KILLING Mexicans as they cross the border," and in 2006, he published the home addresses of several justices on the New Jersey Supreme Court.

I suppose one could stress that Turner never personally threatened the Connecticut state representatives and, therefore, is not culpable. But that only has force if one rejects that inciting others to commit violence should be criminal. I believe that the Connecticut state representatives have a right to live in a society in which no one is encouraging others to harm them. It is threat of harm by potential proxy. Surely no reasonable person believes that free speech includes uttering that kind of threat.

Has Mike Castle Decided to Run for Delaware's US Senate Seat?

By refusing to become the ranking member if the US House of Representatives Education and Labor panel, Delaware Rep. Mike Castle seems to be sending a strong signal that he has decided to run for the US Senate. While he is still not saying what he plans to do (and retirement remains an outside possibility), this decision suggests that he plans to go for Joe Biden's old seat in the US Senate.

clipped from www.politico.com Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, the clear favorite to fill the top Republican slot on the Education and Labor panel, opted not to pursue a bid for the post so he can still ponder a run for the Senate. "While I am honored to be mentioned as a candidate for the Ranking Republican post on the House Education and Labor Committee, I have decided not to pursue the position," Castle said in a release Thursday morning. The popular Delaware Republican said members of the party's Steering Committee expressed "obvious concerns...as to whether or not I would continue to run for my current House seat. Since I am not ready to announce a final decision on whether to run for the House, the Senate or anything...it would be unfair to pursue the ranking member post at this point in time."

Horror at the Holocaust Memorial Museum

Sadly, anti-Semitism is alive and well and it is sometimes violent and armed:

An elderly gunman, said by authorities to have a violent and virulently anti-Semitic past, stepped inside the crowded U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on Wednesday, opened fire with a rifle and fatally wounded a security guard before being shot by other officers.

The alleged gunman is 88-year-old James Von Brunn, a resident of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The victim of the shooting subsequently died. Von Brunn was himself shot in a gunfire exchange with security guards and is listed in critical condition.

Von Brunn's past is violent and characterized by hate:

Von Brunn has a racist, anti-Semitic Web site and wrote a book titled "Kill the Best Gentiles."

In 1983, he was convicted of attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board and served more than six years in prison. He was arrested two years earlier outside the room where the board was meeting, carrying a revolver, knife and sawed-off shotgun. At the time, police said Von Brunn wanted to take the members hostage because of high interest rates and the nation's economic difficulties.

His conspiratorial notions about the Federal Reserve Board could indicate that Von Brunn is a paranoid. That as well as denial and hatred probably brought him to the Holocaust Museum today:

Writings attributed to Von Brunn on the Internet say the Holocaust was a hoax and decry a Jewish conspiracy to "destroy the white gene pool."

Hitler was a hero for him, although on his website the Holy Western Empire he recently argued that "Hitler's 'worst mistake' was that 'he didn't gas the Jews'." Simply disgusting.

While some will undoubtedly argue that Von Brunn's behavior is symptomatic of his political ideology, I am inclined to think that a great deal of psychological life and disorder happens prior to politics and sometimes political ideology for some individuals is symptomatic of their psychological disorders. We'll have to wait for more evidence in Von Brunn's case to make anything resembling an objective assessment of which came first. In any case, we certainly cannot make that assessment on the day of the shooting.

In the meantime, my thoughts are with the victim's family and for the millions of Jewish people who must live with the knowledge always that there are those who want to do them harm.

Inventing Insults: the Bottom of Obama’s Shoes

I once went to hear a couple Tibetan Buddhist monks in Philadelphia give a talk about Buddhism. During the talk, I sat on the floor, legs stretched out in front of me, the soles of my shoes pointing upwards. Afterwards, the host of the talk told me the teachers were offended at my posture because I pointed the bottom of my shoes toward them. I thought their concern was silly, especially coming from so-called "enlightened beings" putatively free from attachments like cultural norms. Supposedly, President Obama has given similar offense:

A photograph of President Obama has caused some controversy in Israel.

White House photographer Pete Sousa on Monday snapped a photo of the president while he talked on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

In the photo, Obama has his feet propped up on a desk inside the Oval Office, and a number of Israeli newscasters last night called the posture insulting, since in many Arab countries, it is considered an insult to show someone the sole of your shoe. 

While no one acquainted with his biography would ever accuse Prime Minister Netanyahu of being an enlightened being, the so-called insult is not even a cultural norm he shares with others in the Middle East:

While the shoe-sole taboo is not a Jewish custom necessarily, the reaction to the photo is a telling indication of the way some Israeli commenters are adjusting to the new U.S. administration's approach to the Middle East. 

Of course, the real problem is that Obama came out in favor of the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (a solution Netanyahu rejects) and he is not supporting further expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Now the press in Israel is inventing insults where none exist only to smear the President and vent their anger at him on other issues.

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. Envoy Begins New Middle East Peace Push (nytimes.com)
• Talking tough with Israel (cbc.ca)
• Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel will expand settlements (telegraph.co.uk)

President Obama's Speech at Cairo University

Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!

Yes, yes, yes! We did it!

The Delaware Senate voted unanimously Tuesday to make the General Assembly abide by open government rules, ending more than two decades of decision-making behind closed committee doors.

The legislation came to a vote only because a petition from Sen. Karen E. Peterson was signed by a majority of senators and forced it to the floor, bypassing the Senate leadership that had routinely bottled up previous efforts by sending bills to committees to languish without a vote.

The bill is not ideal:

The bill would allow the public in on all meetings except party caucuses and "Big Head" committee budget discussions, and provide full access to all legislative records except e-mails sent by lawmakers or their staffs.

I agree with the exemption of e-mails as it applies to constituents and confidential personnel matters, but much of the public's business is conducted in the "Big Head" committee meetings and party caucuses. Still, I'm not complaining today. This bill catapults us light years ahead of where we were before.

Although the Senate voted unanimously for the bill (a margin that shows this bill should have been voted on years ago), some state senators gritted their teeth when they voted it. Senators Robert Venables Sr., Harris McDowell, Nancy Cook and, of course, Thurman Adams argued that the bill was either unnecessary, unconstitutional or both—the last whimper of the defeated. Nevertheless they voted for the bill because of public "perception." In other words, the people wanted open government and they knew it. Perception for Veneables was also media perception:

"We should not let bloggers and newspapers and radio stations and TV stations put so much emphasis on an issue that we have to put legislation in to correct something that doesn't exist," he said.

Nice of him to put bloggers first in the media chain of being. The News Journal widens the circle:

The movement to alter that system has been gathering strength throughout the decade, backed by Common Cause and other civic groups, countless letters published in newspapers and on talk radio and Internet blogs. Applying open-government rules to the General Assembly also has been a campaign staple for challengers.

Enough cannot be said about the tireless advocacy of Senator Karen Peterson over the years for opening the state legislature to public scrutiny. She was the spark that made the issue catch fire throughout the state. Kudos must also go to Rep. Bob Gilligan who promised to sheppard an open government bill through the state House of Representatives should he become Speaker of the House. He kept his promise. But the real credit goes to scores, possibly hundreds, of Delawareans who let their legislators know through personal contact and at the ballot box that they wanted open government in the First State. They made the difference. To them I am especially grateful.

Why Shouldn’t Educators Be Well Compensated?

The News Journal's Cris Barrish has turned in another fine piece of investigative journalism, this time about the compensation of Delaware Technical & Community College President Orlando George Jr. The piece rests upon two assumptions:

1. Orlando George's compensation is too high.
   
2. Administrators in education shouldn't be the highest paid public employees.
   

Notice that these two assumptions don't have a necessary relationship between them. For example, it's entirely possible to hold that George's compensation is excessive and yet believe that administrators in education should be the highest paid public employees or among the highest paid public employees. Indeed, I will argue something like that below.

What I find interesting about Barrish's piece is that while it proffers ample evidence for the first assumption, it proffers virtually none for the second one. For the second one it attempts to appeal to an intuition that it is somehow obvious that administrators in education shouldn't be the highest paid public employees. I find the so-called obviousness of that assumption highly questionable. In fact, I find that a pervasive version of the same doubtful assumption operates within the public about the compensation of educators as a whole.

The First Assumption

As far as his first assumption is concerned, Barrish provides the smoking gun as evidence for it. George's compensation consists of:

• $360,00 base salary
  
• An annual "cash fringe benefit" that totaled last year $90,000
  
• A $5,000 expense account
  
• 8 weeks of paid vacation
  
• Use of a 2008 Buick Lucerne
  
• Free gas and other car expenses
  
• "$2,380-a-year membership and work-related meals at Wilmington's University & Whist Club…paid for by private donors."
  

By national standards, George's compensation is out of line for junior college presidents:

While board members say George's pay is not out of line, only two junior college presidents in America make more money, according to The Chronicle Of Higher Education's most recent nationwide survey. Both of those presidents run systems -- statewide in Kentucky and in Dade County, Fla. -- that dwarf DelTech in size.

Case closed as far as I am concerned. Orlando George makes too much money from the taxpayers.

The Second Assumption

Barrish's second assumption that administrators in education shouldn't be the highest paid public employees is revealed in a series of statements:

Among Delaware state officials, George's compensation is more than twice that of any judge or medical doctor on the payroll.

Dr. Gerard Gallucci, medical director at the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health, is the second-highest-paid, at $205,700. Third is Supreme Court Chief Justice Myron T. Steele, at $194,750, and third is George H. Meney, superintendent of Colonial School District, at $192,700.

Gov. Markell, whose salary is $171,000, has agreed to take a 10 percent cut this fiscal year and a 20 percent cut in the fiscal year starting July 1.

I take it that the point of these statements is that it is somehow obvious that the president of Del Tech compensation shouldn't be higher than that of any judge, supreme court justice, medical doctor, or the state's governor. Why is that obvious?

Let's deepen the question and apply it to the assumption that school administrators and teachers shouldn't be well compensated. It's an assumption that one often reads in comments on the blogosphere or in the newspaper (especially online versions of it) or hears on talk radio. Note I am not talking about overcompensation. As any regular reader of Delaware Watch knows, few people dislike vast disparities in income more than me. I'm talking about the assumption that educators shouldn't be compensated at rates that are generally higher relative to other public employees.

Why is that assumption obvious when the work of educators arguably pervasively affects the overall long-term economy of a state more than any other profession in the public sector? Everyone benefits from an educated workforce. Indeed, it can be accurately said that an educated workforce is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a good economy. Don't those who meet that necessary condition deserve to be compensated well? That's what strikes me as intuitively obvious.

Tonight on Progressive Voices: Harry Gravel and Richard Korn

Listen to "Progressive Voices" every Monday evening on WVUD, 91.3 FM from the University of Delaware in Newark, DE.

Tonight's hosts: Marion Peleski & Dana Garrett.

Note: Monday's show starts at 6:30 p.m. and ends at 7:00. Listen from anywhere in the world you at http://www.wvud.org/listen_online.htm

* * * *

April 25 - May 2, 2009 a delegation of Delaware Labor leaders traveled to Venezuela on a labor exchange and trade mission. Tonight we will talk with two members of the Delaware Delegation to Venezuela, Harry Gravell and Richard Korn about the trip: what they learned about Venezuela, the purpose of the trip and how the exchange can benefit Delaware in the future.

Harry Gravell is President of Building Trades Council of Delaware and Richard Korn is a labor lobbyist, political consultant and husband of the artist and Venezuelan native Magada Korn.