That's an entirely different argument El, than the point you were making with the Christie statement. Private schools are closer to a free market approach than public.
I made the comparison to illustrate the similarities that appear between CEO and super salaries....which tend to drive the perception/arguments that public schools are a free market. They most certainly are not. A BOE is markedly different that a BOD. Yes, the models are similar, but the funding foundations are completely different....ergo free maket vs public schools.
My point is still the same: If market value dictate they should be earning more, why does the government need to step in and dictate what they should be paid?
Or conversely, if it's ok to dictate arbitrary caps 'because the budget is strained', where does it end?
Why aren't we doing the same by dictating what doctors or health care providers get paid under programs like Medicare or Medicaid? I reckon people throwing a hissy fit when that was proposed.
But supers are similarly free agents as far as I can tell. They're hired on a contract basis. At least that's my understanding.
I fail to understand the need for a cap. If the BoE budget is reduced and they can't afford to pay a super as much, wouldn't that be the market dictating what their value is? Sorry Teysha, I just have a hard time understanding where the cap is a 'necessary evil'.
Depends what you feel is the primary mission of government when it comes to public services such as education. Do you believe the primary responsibility of government is to strictly adhere to free market principles regarding compensation of public servants? Or do you believe the primary responsibility is to <gasp> serve the public by placing the public's interests ahead of the public servant's?
If you're a free market guy, there is no end to arbitrary caps dictated by strained budgets and market realities.Or conversely, if it's ok to dictate arbitrary caps 'because the budget is strained', where does it end?
Not exactly the same thing since doctors & healthcare providers aren't government employees. The government decides what it will reimburse doctors/HCP's, doctors/HCP's are then free to decide whether or not they will treat those patients for that cost.Why aren't we doing the same by dictating what doctors or health care providers get paid under programs like Medicare or Medicaid? I reckon people throwing a hissy fit when that was proposed.
No, it does not.
I think that public sector employees should, in genera,l take pay cuts with budget deficits, especially like that of Texas'. I think state employees should share the burden, and I think taxes should be raised as well. Spending cuts, although necessary, are NOT sufficient. Anyone involved in the process who is grownup and honest about it would admit to that. (translation: ain't no way any Republican in the Legislature would admit that. Yeah, I went there.)
In the long run, though, the salaries should remain at levels sufficient to be able to be somewhat picky about people that apply.
Letting them fall too much relative to the private sector is a recipe for disaster.
Depends on your definition of 'public's interest'. Is the public's interest best served by letting experienced people with a proven track record go?
I think NJ's education results brought in by these people speak for themselves. Ultimately, you do get what you pay for. The fact that these people can get better salaries on a different state and are actually moving there speaks volumes about their capacity and the fact that NJ is unwilling to keep investing in excellence.
If you told me you're capping those salaries because they don't produce results, then I would agree you might be onto something.
Wouldn't that be the free market setting what the cap is? Why do we need a non-free market cap then?
I'm actually playing devil's advocate in this thread, since I've previously stated that I don't think the free-market offers solutions to everything as some people in here like to champion.
Well, that's fairly close to what's happening here as far as I can tell. And they're indeed packing their bags and going somewhere else where they get paid uncapped 'market value'.
Last edited by ElNono; 06-20-2011 at 12:20 PM.
Here is a real-world follow up:
Suppose you have a state, like say, Texas, where there are some pockets of extreme poverty, and 60-70% of any given prac ioner's business *is* Medicaid? (known in Texas as STAR for adults, and CHIP for kids)
What if the reductions cause them to give up practicing altogether, or simply move somewhere else?
You then have reduced the ration of health care available in that area, and really ed over the county hospital, who is legally obligated to take anybody that walks into their emergency room. The county then is forced to raise whatever tax is available to it.
All such cuts do is simply shift more of the costs onto the people who can least afford it anyways, and very likely increase the costs to the system overall.
It amounts to a feel-good gimmick that not only doesn't solve a problem, it makes things markedly worse, IMO.
Not only that, but the Health Care Reform bill has cut a lot of federal funding that has, in the past, gone to border hospitals, and other county hospitals that serve poor areas, so those hospitals are going to get slammed already, and this would just make it worse.
I will confirm this is happening, from access to first-hand anecdotal accounts. I don't see it personally, but talk regularly to people whose job it is to deal with these doctors directly.
From the TFA that started this discussion:
But when Brady realized a new cap on superintendents’ salaries would reduce her $183,759 pay by $40,000, she decided to look for a new job — out of state.
"You multiply that by seven or eight years and compare it with your career plan leading up to retirement and the certain dollars you had in your head and all of a sudden it doesn’t add up anymore," said Brady, 55, who on Aug. 1 will become superintendent of schools in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., where she will earn $225,000.
Education is the one area I hate seeing as a need for pay cuts.
Cut something else, imo.
Texas already runs a very lean state government, so there isn't a lot to cut without getting draconian anyways.
If they cut education as badly they say they want to, it will end up in court, and I will personally be among those waving signs at school board meetings.
Raise my taxes. I can hang with it and understand why it is happening.
I'm ok with that to a point.
I'd rather find a way to get rid of high school students that don't want to be there.
I'd also like to see people like the ones in Allen, TX that approve spending 60 million in tax dollars to fund a high school football stadium get their asses kicked.
"Raise my taxes"
Not in TX. Repugs are economic/social Darwinian sociopaths that prefer to let old, young, sick, disabled poor stay hungry, sick, die, uneducated than raise taxes.
Thanks, Capt. Zero Sum.
gfy, VRWC, ankle biter!
Raising taxes kills jobs. 90% of american jobs are created by the richest 1% of Americans
If the tradeoff from capping superintendents salaries is that more teachers can be retained who would otherwise have to be laid off, then yeah, it very well could be in the public's interests.
Granted I'm a cynic, but the concept of getting what you pay for is not a universal truth when it comes to government spending IMHO. Maybe we come to find out that superintendent salaries, or even teacher salaries, are not the be-all, end-all determinant of success of the school system that superintendants and teachers would like you to believe.I think NJ's education results brought in by these people speak for themselves. Ultimately, you do get what you pay for. The fact that these people can get better salaries on a different state and are actually moving there speaks volumes about their capacity and the fact that NJ is unwilling to keep investing in excellence.
If you told me you're capping those salaries because they don't produce results, then I would agree you might be onto something.
So noted.Wouldn't that be the free market setting what the cap is? Why do we need a non-free market cap then?
I'm actually playing devil's advocate in this thread, since I've previously stated that I don't think the free-market offers solutions to everything as some people in here like to champion.
Good for them.Well, that's fairly close to what's happening here as far as I can tell. And they're indeed packing their bags and going somewhere else where they get paid uncapped 'market value'.
This is the future of medicare. The needs exceed the means. Someone's going to end up having to go without. Sucks, but that's life. Sure there's pain behind cutting services, but there's also pain in spending more than you can afford.
Yep. If it were up to me we'd have tapped the rainy day fund to cover the education shortfall and replenished the RDF with a temporary 0.25cent sales tax.
Actually, teachers were already laid off last year. The explanation for this specific capping is that no public employee should make more than the governor (who makes $175,000/year IIRC). Which to me is completely re ed seeing that some of these people have 20+ years of service in education (not necessarily as superintendents).
I don't think it's an universal truth either. I think there are ways to measure how effective your spending is. IE: if you spend this much and your schools are at the bottom of the national ranks, then something is broken. But NJ has been ranking in the top 3 in education for the last few years (IIRC, definitely last year).
I'm all for auditing how the money is spent. But just capping for some pet peeve in detriment of educational excellence looks very short-sighted, IMO.
That's just it. It isn't like deflating the balloon. It is simply squeezing itin one place, only to see it bulge somewhere else.
Simply cutting back spending is not the solution.
Consider:
Woman "cuts spending" by not taking her blood pressure medication.
After a week, she is rushed to the ER, where more money is spent in the futile attempt to save her life than it would have taken to buy her medicine for the next 60 years.
This is a real, actual result. A story that a surgeon in favor of single payor is rather fond of.
The only way you avoid this, is if you repeal the laws that say "you must treat anybody who comes into the ER, without worrying about whether they can pay or not".
Are you willing to give the uninsured a death sentence?
All wants and needs exceed supply. That is why we have prices. To ration who gets what.
The problem is that this free-market method of rationing health care is very inefficient, and costs us much more than a comprehensive health care system for all.
I've always maintained that a combination of spending cuts and tax increases are necessary. But seeing as how the current debate on the tax increase side at the national level is over whether taxes should be raised on 0% or 2% of the population, it should be fairly obvious to everyone which side of the cuts / taxes equation is going to have to carry the larger burden. Are there going to be painful ramifications from that? Definitely. I think it's inevitable that medicare turns into a voucher program and that there's at least a partial repeal of the laws requiring hospitals to treat everyone who comes into the ER. It's a bleak picture. Sucks to be us.
Pshaw. With the furore over "death panels", I don't see a repeal of those laws.
All you have to do is frame it this way:
"These people wanting to repeal this think that if you don't have insurance, you deserve to bleed to death in the ER. Do you really want the penalty for not having insurance to be death?"
And you have instantly made the subject radioactive, no matter how bad our finances are, unless you have a total fanatic fiscal conservative there who doesn't care about being re-elected, and then have not only that, but a large plurality of that to weather the above criticism.
I mean if she copys Obama and sticks to the script others write.
I think if she actually took her political career seriously and actually did take the time to learn how to communicate as well as Dubya/Obama and any other seasoned politician, she would have a shot (honest).
Unfortunately, it's really an ear sore (or unintended comedy, your pick) to listen to her trying to coherently express her thoughts at times.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
