'Something needs to be adjusted'

     The best assessment I have heard on the confrontation in Wisconsin between teachers' unions and the intransigent new governor and his teaparty backers came from David Brooks, the conservative/moderate New York Times columnist.
     In his regular Friday evening roundtable with Jim Lehrer of PBS and Mark Shields, nationally syndicated columnist out of Washington, Brooks refused to take sides in the debate's core issue, which is whether union benefits need to be curtailed. But he said, and I paraphrase, "In the past 25 years there have been too many concessions but no funding for union pensions, and now something needs to be adjusted. Not like Warner wants to do in Wisconsin, but changes do have to be made."
     In my first adult job with United Air Lines at what was then called Friendship International Airport, my desk was just outside the door to the office of the station manager, and I heard all the conversations between union representatives and management whenever there was a local grievance. I was not yet 21, but I came to distrust the tactics, if not the motives, of the union leaders. Everything was blown out of proportion, and compromise was not a priority. I came to believe that the excessive demands of airline unions were a threat to the industry.
     Those opinions were no secret when I first ran for commissioner 40 years later. The board of the Carroll County Education Association grilled me as they did all candidates, knowing I had written columns and editorials in the past that had been critical of job actions and public employee unions. They asked me, point blank, if I wanted their endorsement.
     My reply was just as straight-forward. I said an endorsement by any union could be a kiss of death for a politician in this county, but I was more interested in letting people know, pro-union or not, that I was and remain pro-teacher. I said I am not fond of unions, but I support teachers. Same with firefighters and police. I like the men and women in the trenches, and would continue to support good wages and working conditions, but would never be able to support the traditional tactics of collective bargaining, which included, in my experience, intimidation of teachers, cops or anyone else in the ranks who did not walk the party line.
     A major concern to me in the issue of local policing versus making the sheriff the primary law enforcement officer was the source of so much support for the sheriff's position: A huge push was made by not only local members of the Fraternal Order of Police, but by law enforcement officers' unions across the entire nation. The weight of the benefits package favored by those unions is something called LEOPs, which is like the weight placed on the back of a beast of burden; it can grow over the years -- or quickly -- and break the backs of local government and the taxpayers. Ask the City of Westminster, which adopted the LEOPS plan a few years ago.
     So, being opposed to both union weight and conservatives waving flags and the Constitution, political leaders quickly find themselves forced to take sides or stand alone. Most will go with the votes and the campaign money.
    During that same campaign leading up to the 2002 election, I was asked by conservatives in every Republican club in the county, and in every candidates' forum, if I would cut spending and cut taxes. I believed we needed to do more for teachers, for emergency services workers, both professional and volunteers, and law enforcement in general.
     You should not promise to cut taxes until you have learned all that you need to know about the spending.
     I coined a phrase, "gradual and incremental," that I felt applied to every action that should be taken by elected officials, especially ones like me, still learning. Make cuts where you can, but make them gradually and incrementally. Spend more where you have to, like pension funding, but do it gradually and hold the line on tax increases.
     It's a balancing act; too much, too fast, and there are unplanned consequences later. One thing we did was recognize the need to include in our budget a plan for funding pensions.  That, as much as the already wise handling of the budget by county staff, led to improved ratings by New York bond rating firms, including one triple A. That saved taxpayers money, and gave the county better positioning in funding mandated or highly desirable public services.
     Ignoring the obligation to fund pensions has put many states and local governments in financial trouble. Over-reacting, or playing to the conservative rhetoric, as we have seen in Wisconsin by Governor Warner, or at the local level in Carroll County as the board of commissioners ties up future boards and decisions with a "super majority" requirement to raise revenues, has a negative effect on credit ratings and, ironically, costs the taxpayers more.
     In other words, as David Brooks said, what is needed is adjustment -- gradual and incremental, thoughtful, and even bi-partisan in nature.