Recently in Local Politics Category

There are times when I simply shake my head after reading an article in the newspaper. This is one of them. In a (short-sighted) discussion about the State of Wisconsin's projected (perhaps, better said, guaranteed) budget shortfall, one of the areas where spending is being evaluated is with regards to state workers receiving pay for overtime hours. Notice I say receiving pay for overtime hours and not working overtime hours.

"The Journal Sentinel reported last year that eight of the 20 top-paid correctional officers in 2006 called in sick for a shift and then worked the immediate next shift at least once. Those employees earned eight hours of regular pay for the time they were off and eight hours of time-and-a-half pay for the shifts they worked."

What is being described here is not working overtime. This type of scheme makes my head spin. How does someone who hasn't even worked their normal shift receive overtime hours for showing up to the next shift (forget the idea of having to reach 40 hours before receiving overtime because many places - including our company - you receive overtime pay for working beyond your shift)?

In the end, I think the focus on overtime in it and of itself is completely misguided. Already trained workers being paid time and a half for overtime hours are likely to be more efficient and conscientious than someone who has been hired solely because too many overtime hours have been worked by the current staff. When we look at the details, however, of how overtime is defined, the question that needs to be asked is, "what is the state thinking?" And, if this type of financial behavior exists with something as simple as defining overtime, imagine what other types of ridiculous indiscretions take place.

via 25 State Workers Earned More than $50,000 in Overtime in '08 - JSOnline

I've been mulling this post for a few hours now and I still don't quite know what to say. I just attended my first Planning Commission meeting (as a Commissioner) for the township in which I live (Darien, WI) and was a bit overwhelmed by one thing: people making constant and contradictory statements. Because the contents of the meeting are public, I have no issue with airing specific details about what I experienced (and my opinions thereof), but before I do, I want to gather my thoughts a bit.

One thing struck me more than anything: we have all but forgotten about individual property rights. By that, I mean, the general idea that when you own something, you may do with it as you please. As we all know, this is never cut and dry. While I own my car and it is more than capable of traveling at speeds of well over 100 mph, I cannot legally do so. So, on one hand, I may take a hammer to my car and destroy it if I wish, but I may not always use or treat it in the manner that I see fit. The problem that I have with the mentality on display tonight is that of the creep effect. Once it is allowable to dictate what one is able to do with his or her thing in one particular instance, It must be acceptable to decide for them what they may or may not do in another setting. This mentality has the inevitability of creep... It creeps into everything.

I met the other day with a group of individuals on a project to better the state of politics in Wisconsin and perhaps the national agenda in some small way. One of the persons was concerned with anonymous participation in the group and this got me thinking this evening. The person was concerned with what I assume to be a connection between a strong stance in politics and the potential repercussions such a stance can have. I can relate. Until recently, I was very cautious about voicing specific opinions because I didn't want to ruin the possibility of being able to receive the necessary permission to do something business related from such and such bureaucracy just because the person in charge heard or found out what I said and decided to use it against me. I know this is a very real possibility and becomes more onerous the more one must work with regulatory agencies to achieve their goals. (It is sad but true that there is very little we can pursue today in the US that doesn't involve getting permission in some sort or other. I know it is better than many other places, but it is still worse than it once was.)

I started reading economic and political rags around the time I turned 12. It was an early interest in a wide range of topics that eventually landed me in the hands of Dr. Thomas Sowell over 18 years ago. The first article of his that I read was published in Forbes Magazine (and I still have a copy somewhere buried in my basement). From the first paragraph on, I have been fascinated with Dr. Sowell's insight and narrative style. I wish more people would read his works... Even if you were limited to two articles a year, you would be much more educated and wise from heeding his commentary.

I realized that while it would be illegal for me to try to post his articles in whole on my weblog (besides screw him out of the deserved royalties from his work), I realized that I can do something. One of his more recent books, Ever Wonder Why? And Other Controversial Essays, (click the link to go to Amazon and see what it is about) is an quick and easy read - and is really a compilation of a bunch of articles that made me look forward to his articles so many years ago. So, here's the deal. I know there are all of four of you who read my blog... but perhaps we can start a mini reading revolution at that. I want to give away 100 copies of Dr. Sowell's book. In order to get your free (shipping and all) copy, all you need to do is write me at snfettig@gmail.com with "Free Sowell Book" in the subject line and your FULL address in the body of the email. That is all you need to do. You don't even need to say hi. Just send me an email with that information. (Oh... and I sincerely promise that I will NOT give away any of your address information. Frankly, I don't have the time nor energy to do anything with it other than send out the books.)

If this works out, I'll give away 500 more copies over the course of the remaining portion of this year and next year. I will keep track of the numbers given away here. I might be embarrassed and find that no one requests a copy. How unfortunate would that be? We'll see.

I'm trying to learn to blog "shortly," I'll call it. Even though, that's not the right word, nor is it used correctly in any way here.

My head is about to friggin' explode.

Just because you want a poor family to receive health insurance such that your next visit to the doctor does not drive them further into the poor house, it does not follow necessarily that handing said responsibility to the government will solve the problem.

You state that you wish to help people in need, that we all need to sacrifice. We all need to be willing to give of our excesses. And I agree. That is a motto to live by. Whether or not it is because you believe in Jesus or Karma, giving is good. It does not follow, however, that it is the job of government to manage said transfers of money.

You wish for adequate this, fair that, and equitable practices and yet you deem a system whereby coercion is used to subjugate everyone to a planned order of life that follows your every whim is the manner in which to wish to achieve your goals is adequate, fair, and equitable.

You condemn one side for their voracious taking of civil liberties in the name of protecting our borders, yet you rot our internal system that has created the wealth you depend on with ideology that says fair is not fair and just means doing what you think is right.

You're an idiot.