Note: Dan Calabrese's posting "Union entitlement is unsustainable" posted to the Michigan View (Detroit / Heritage / Mackinac News) on March 11, 2011 was removed from the Detroit News website.So we find our Michigan View moralist and anti-public cynic, Dan Calabrese saying:
"When the economic environment changed, they (Many units of government in Michigan) wished they could get out from under these commitments, or better yet, that they had never made them in the first place."
This candid admission shows a lack of support for honest commitment and basic integrity. Moral gives way to business practical. When we encourage these units to use a crisis to accomplish what we know is their contractual and socially committed obligations, (due to disaster capitalism and Snyders flawed budget proposals) we rationalize our firm determination to walk away.
Rick Snyder's self-created finance crisis is built atop a monster Bush created economic collapse due to systemic corruption, fraud, and cleverly designed de-regulation stepped down from Washington, D.C. by no-less than former/ousted one term U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham.
Sen. Abraham presided over the very Senate session that lowered the bar on unique and publically indecipherable investment devices and market gambling that had been previously outlawed. These retreats from market regulation, laws that had made illegal by that same body over 100 years previously.
Libertarians are almost certainly to be practitioners of an amoral code. They are highly individual. The well-being of others is shut out as they pursue the neo-Objectivist code of a dangerous Russian-born radical, Ayn Rand (Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum), whose virulent atheist, anti-Jesus gospel/tome was published titled "The Virtue of Selfishness."
Many neo-Libertarians infesting the body politic are the Evil Samaritans; who steer completely clear of those of their fellow humans in distress or need. They're not community-minded.
If being a liberal is by definition being: generous and gregarious, with a mind to community and advocates of the New England Town Meeting, collective good; they are not some say even "evil." They know nothing of the true nature of an organization that calls its members, brothers and sisters-the labor associations that have made the middle class prosper and their children attain to a higher level of education and service do to the brotherhood of association. Never forget the corporate evils of the past which were overcome by solidarity!
Dan thinks he's right. And we know he's "right" alright. Dan often here at the MIView, prides himself being "right of right" As he moves toward greed, he will be less and less troubled by "kicking against the pricks" by God and more anesthetized by his own narrow needs to the more complete exclusion of others outside his "tribe" read; mega-church and weekly Christian Businessman's meetings, Tea Party klatch.
This is why we react with skepticism when we learn that Dan's problems with unions and public employees. His reaction is rooted in the fact they represent employees with a right to organize and enjoy due process. So when things went sour for Dan's PR business, as he has revealed on this blog, Dan clearly resents and resists not having the privilege of his simple "pleasure" -freedom to tap a worker on the shoulder at a perfect moment in the work day: giving the employee a cardboard box and showing him/her the door ala his sacred right; the ability to "hire and fire at will."
We also note, Dan goes farther in his pursuit of "autonomous self-interest." Calabrese tells us; "...when you're deluded into thinking you've entered Permanent Fat and Happy Land, you do things - things you sometimes regret. You sign long-term leases on offices and equipment. You agree to generous union contracts. Hey, the numbers look good!" Dan did this, he tells us, then he decided he was being boxed in by his decision to "go under contract" with his provider at the very time his business was floundering. Calabrese's "out"? Who would believe: Violate/break the binding contract.
Dan: "The problem was that more than half my monthly expenses were from long-term leases I HAD FOOLISHLY SIGNED. I couldn't just sit there and say, 'Cut this, cut this, cut that . . .' I had to contact each of the parties involved and see if I could renegotiate. Some were willing. Others were not."
"The bottom line is this: The business survived, and is still operating today, but only because I recognized it had to be radically restructured, with REGRETTABLE AGREEMENTS renegotiated and certain elements eliminated entirely."
How did Dan accomplish survival of his business?
Dan: "In the case of (the lease company) I sent back the copier early, and told them they could try to collect more money from me if they thought it was worth the trouble. They didn't.
Wrote Calabrese:
"You may conclude from all this that I am a horrible businessman. YOU MIGHT NOT BE WRONG. But the point is that I faced problems that many businesses face every day, and I had no choice but to make adjustments and reform my organization in order to survive."
From this self-narrated story Calabrese draws this wider public conclusion: The State should likewise needs to break it's social contract and long-standing commitment to its career retirees and teachers. Dan's wisdom based on his "business experience" is just walk away. Collect if you can.
Calabrese pontificates:
"No one is ever entitled to anything forever. You (the state and business) do the best you can, given the economic realities in which you operate. You can be flexible when circumstances demand it, or you can refuse, in which case people will find a way not to have to deal with you."
In other words take what is given you (public employees) forget that the State as a retirement obligation to you or the state will "find a way not to have to deal with you."
So the promise keeper State is supported to become the promise breaker, the deadbeat manager of obligations clearly integral to the retiree's retirement fund. And all this based on a faulty logic and a contrived and purposefully exaggerated "economic crisis"; presented by Snyder et. al. as a device to target "political enemies."
How moral is that, Dan?
Original Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment