Is it really Tuesday?

Just when you thought is was going to over, you discover there is still one more act left.  Whether the final act is going to prove you guessed wrong as to the outcome remains to be seen.

There has been enough movement in the polls to the point where what was looking like a sure bet has everyone scratching their heads in the political pundit world.  The real worry will set in after Thursday night, if in fact there will be anything to worry about.

Why that long?

With new polls released everyday, with polls covering different tracking periods, it is going to take a week or so to see if the change is accurately reflected across the same time periods, and the "switch" is truly a change in thought, rather than an mood swing resulting from a specific event.

There has been a definite bump/shift/ change in the wind, what have you, after the debate.  

The Democrats attribute it to Romney being dishonest during the debate.  Truth be told, both sides have played pretty loose with the truth on various issues.  This is one fact the independent fact checker groups seem to agree on.

The Princeton economist being cited by the Obama campaign to disprove Romney's version of his tax cuts has come out and stated that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his work.  This could be a stumbling block in the argument against the "tax cut", especially as the economist has gone on record as saying there are in fact ways to do it i a revenue neutral manner.

The recent news on gas prices in California aren't going to help.  It won't change a thing on how the state will go.  It is a solid lock for Obama.  But the constant flashing of the pictures showing the prices in California do have an affect on people everywhere.  

I do get the fact that there are reasons for the bump in that state vs. the rest of the country, and the factors that influence gas prices everywhere are not easily reigned in or under government control.  It is nonetheless true that a pictures is worth a thousand words, and for many people the prospect of even the thought of $5.00 plus per gallon scares them a whole lot.

The news on the Libyan consulate attack is not helping the President any either.

It is still Obama's election to lose.  He took an unbelievable first step toward doing so last Thursday.  He hasn't thrown it away yet.  What he has done was make a race out of a contest that was all but over before the debate.

While the popular vote polls show an extremely tight race, the electoral college projection still indicate a very hard road for Romney to navigate.  Truth be told, looking at the map, I am not sure he can successfully find the right path.  But hey, it is only Tuesday.

While the main event has become a bit muddled, what is clearer is the debate is having some effect in the "trickle down" category, i.e. the House and Senate races.

It also places some emphasis on this week's V.P. debate on Thursday

Make no mistake over the fact that this could be a disaster for either side.  One major blunder by Biden or Ryan will send the pundits on a feeding frenzy  Not that it should.

Despite the "potential" for either individual to be a "heart beat" away from what is still the most powerful office in the world, these two people are where they are for the sole purpose of window dressing.  Should it be otherwise, perhaps. It is reality nonetheless.

They are on the ticket because of a certain appeal to certain voters. I seriously doubt that the primary, or even a top secondary reason for picking either one of them was that they would make a good president if the need arose.

The main thing with this debate is to make sure you don't sink the top guy on your ticket.

Another event on the debate circuit, Round III in the Brown/Warren Senate Race is scheduled for Wednesday night.  this one will be interesting.  While I feel from the debate perspective Brown has won the first two, winning a debate doesn't equate into winning the election.  What also has to be considered is while he may have won the first two debates, his opponent did a credible job in the debate also.  

Brown needs something more in this third debate.  He has to stop the harping on the ancestry issue, he has to stop hammering the "legal work".  He should at this point in fact be talking about his votes and explaining them.  He needs to get off the rehearsed lists of bullet points.

There was in mind mind a valid point to the original vote against the student loan interest rate bill.  There was in fact compromise that led to to the bill being passed.

He needs to point out the standard line from the Democrats majority leader in the Senate, "no amendments allowed".

He needs to point out that will there may be a desired end to a bill, there are most always adverse consequences tied to passage.  

The trickle down in today's piece brings us to local matters.  To clarify a point or two, let's start with the voc-tech expansion.  First, as someone pointed out to me, correctly, technically there does not have to be a special town meeting on the issue.  The regional school committee takes a formal vote, notifies the selectmen, and the selectmen can simply not call a town meeting to be held within 60 days of the vote and by doing nothing that will authorize the borrowing on Fairhaven's part.

Anyone out there seriously think that this should be what happens?

This option is one of the biggest gripes I have with these "regional" districts/regional entities.  These laws should not be written to require a member community to take action to disapprove anything.  If your elected officials could not make the decision on a matter solely affecting the town, they should not be able to make a similar decision on their own for a regional district.

It may well be that Town Meeting approves the project, rather than disapprove it.  But it should be Town Meeting that approves this project, as it would be Town Meeting that has to approve all such projects for the Town.

At some point, the reasons of the project will all be addressed before our selectmen, that is I assume they will.  I will get to the "tax burden" and "free money" arguments at some point.  Until that time, I end it here on that little example of how regional government works.

Caught in the middle, do you turn right or left?

I found the link to follow from a review of the Chicago Teachers Union facebook page. The actual piece of interest, at least to me, is the fb post which leads you to the CTU blog with the Gloria Steinem piece.  Of note is the part that reads a follows:

“As an 87% female workforce, and one that is nearly half African American and Latino, the Chicago Teachers Union know what their students need. This is why this country needs unions, collective bargaining, and mayors who recognize, honor and fairly pay the people our children know – and who know our children.”

Now depending on who's position you read, Chicago teachers either average the top or 2nd spot for highest average pay in the country.  So, as far as fairly paying people, not sure where that comes in, even before the proposed raise mentioned below.

On the "CBS Chicago" site, there is an interesting piece done last June on the issue. It seems to look at both sides of the coin fairly well. 

We are talking a range of $72,000.00 to $76,000.00 under either scenario by the way.  Might be worth noting too that according to ZipAtlas, the average income per person in the top earning zip code area for Chi Town is $68,000.00.

It is important to acknowledge that from the teachers' point of view, the issues are more than just money.  

Glad to hear it because at that pay schedule, with the city having offered 16% over 4 years, it shouldn't just be about money at this point.  It should not have anything to do with money at this point.

According to an article in the LaCrosse Tribune, the Chicago Mayor is perplexed over the strike.  The Mayor is quoted as saying:

"This is not a strike I wanted," Emanuel said. "It was a strike of choice ... it's unnecessary, it's avoidable and it's wrong. "

Mayor Emanuel is none other that Rahm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff for President Obama, and who is essentially now the lead person for raising the big money donations for the DNP and Obama (or was until the strike).

Again let's forget about the implications of a 16% pay raise over 4 years by a school system that probably can't really afford it.  A system which according to The New York Times is all ready facing a $665,000,000.00 deficit.

There is much more at stake here.  

A big chunk of the other issues involve school reform along the lines being pressed on a national level by the present administration.  Reforms by the way that for the most part make sense in my opinion.  

The act of the strike might very well make it impossible now for the issues to be resolved without either side looking like they caved.  Indeed, the strike could very well be a wedge between the union solidarity with the Democrats.  

As The Chicago Tribune put it:

A teachers strike is fraught with political peril for Emanuel and CTU leadership. Both risk angering thousands of working parents now scrambling to find places for children. 

The strike could cut against the narrative Emanuel is trying to craft as a leader who is a problem-solver moving the city forward. It also could set the tone for his somewhat fractured relationship with labor, with his first major union contract negotiation ending in a strike.

Let's not kid ourselves though.  The odds of Illinois swinging right over this are slim and none, and slim went home after the DNC.  On the national perspective though, there could be some ripples.  I think though small ripples.  Polling data shows Romney is going to need more much more than a strike in one city.

As a note, The Chicago Tribune also has a piece outlining the points in contention. As a further note, here is a link to the summary of the city's proposal. 

I will leave it up to you to decide whether the city is asking the union members to do more than their fair share.  

If the strike now settles with the union getting even more money, but little else, what does that imply?

If the city caves on the ed reforms, those that mirror the one's being supported and pushed by the Obama administration, just what do you think that might imply?

How does the Mayor erase the implication of being labeled one who doesn't "recognize, honor and fairly pay" teachers without jettisoning either fiscal responsibility or what all most everyone agrees is needed educational reform?

How does he manage to come off as a problem solver, leader and reform and educational system that needs reforming?

From the political pundit realm, you got to love these little skirmishes the people who lead the charge in a certain party find themselves in. 

From the reality perspective, you got to wonder how you can hand out raises of that magnitude in a system running in the red.  

But again, we are ignoring the money issue, or at least half-heartily pretending that is the case.

There is a quote in The New York Times piece attributed to a parent that actually pretty much sums up a universally held belief about dealings with Mayor Emanuel:  

“He has a vision for what he wants ... and he’s not going to let anything get in his way.”

Whether that vision gets altered remains to be seen.  

Least you all think the teachers don't have some points, they do.  The whole "teaching to the test" concept does have flaws.  Just as some of the arguments against standardized testing have flaws.  Where the happy middle ground is on those issues may never be found.  

What somebody needs to find quickly though is a solution to this one.  A face saving solution.  A real one though.  

We can talk about how the right has worked to destroy teachers' unions, indeed all unions, and how unions are under siege and how so many things have been done to erode unions, but in the end this strike and the issues leading to this strike need to be looked at specifically as to this strike.  It isn't the right that is cramming President Obama's educational policies down the union's throat.  It isn't just the right that is calling for teacher evaluations.  It isn't the right that is offering only a 16% pay package.  It is the President's former right hand man.

So what does all this mean? In the presidential election it means very little, I think despite talking heads.  Of course that assumes it settles by the end of this week or sooner.  How it settles, and who is perceived to come out on top will in fact have far reaching consequences though for school districts across the country.

For the moment, personally, it really is nothing more than the irony of the situation after last week's love fest.  

It is enjoying the fact that after hearing about all the obstructionist talk, and the need to work together, how it was believed best not to involve the mayor directly in last minute negotiations because of the personal animosity between him and the union,with an plea by him to boot that "if you have a problem with me, don't take it out on the kids".

It is seeing the differences of opinion within the standard bearers of the principles of one party on what is best for us all, especially when one of them is asked to sacrifice for the greater good by the other.  

It is from a political observation a hoot.

In time we might get to the unfortunate realities, but for the moment I prefer to enjoy the ironic twist.

As I sit here I ponder the most ironic twist, hoping that Rahm Emanuel comes out on top.  It would be the first time most people I think would feel he was right.  Most people who don't lean left that is.