Politics

I wrote a couple of days ago about an anti-bullying bill coming before the Massachusetts Senate that contained unrelated language adding “hate speech” about sexual orientation to the legal definition of libel. If passed, it could conceivably have opened up ordinary folks writing on web sites and in other places (people like me, in other words) to being used for holding Catholic views on homosexuality.

Fortunately, the offending language was removed just before the vote when the bill was re-written by the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The new bill, S2313, does not have any of the libel language in it.The bill, which passed unanimously, now goes back to the House for another vote.

Thanks to MassResistance for sounding the warning on this one.

MassResistance brings to our attention today a new anti-bullying bill about to be voted on in the Massachusetts Senate on Thursday, March 11, the day after I post this, but perhaps already past by the time you read it. The legislation is a response to some widely reported instances of bullying in local schools, including one where a poor girl who recently immigrated from Ireland was hounded and ostracized to the point of suicide. The cases are universally awful and heart-wrenching, but cry out for local remedy. If parents and educators took responsibility for what’s going on in their own schools, such incidents could be reduced in number or eliminated all together. But, as usual, legislators of all political stripes must earn their paychecks, as it were, and propose new legislation every time something bad hits the news.

In this case, more than a dozen anti-bullying bills had been advanced in the House and Senate this session and they have all been whittled down to one bill being voted on by the Senate tomorrow: S.2283 (PDF).

But as is also very usual, such public and demagogued legislation often has unrelated bits and pieces—stuff that might be unpopular with a lot of people—tacked on so as to present a quandary to politicians. Do they vote against the bill because of these unrelated provisions to which they object and appear uncaring? (“Think of the children!”)

“Hate” speech code

MassResistance points out that S.2283 has one of these poison pills embedded within it, a provision that amends current libel law to expand the list of groups it’s unlawful to speak against. Chapter 272, Section 98C of the Mass. General Laws currently reads:

Whoever publishes any false written or printed material with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color or religion shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(Ironically, Chapter 272 is titled archaically, “Crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order”.)

The new version of this section proposed by S.2283 would say (emphasis added):

Whoever publishes any false material whether written, printed, electronic, televised, or broadcast with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or disability shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

So the question then becomes, “What does it mean to ‘maliciously promote hatred’ and what is the definition of ‘false’?” Note, as well, that in every other section, the bill addresses the bullying and abuse of students, this section casts a wide net and addresses and protects everyone who fits those categories.

Ladies and gents, is this a new speech code, like the ones we’ve been seeing pop up in Canada and Europe? But what about the First Amendment, you ask. Ah, but libel and slander are not constitutionally protected forms of speech. Will those of us who speak publicly about the immorality of homosexual acts and the whole homosexual subculture be labeled as “haters” subject to criminal prosecution? And while I can’t imagine the present US Supreme Court upholding this law if it’s challenged, I’m not so confident of future Courts, if the trend toward judicial activism continues.

I put the question to the lawyers out there: Is this something to worry about? In any case, it might be worthwhile, if there’s still time after you read this, to contact your Senator and express your distrust of this bill. Speech codes are never good for democracy.

Update: The Senate passed the bill unanimously yesterday.

Photo by Caveman (Kickin’ 66 with Pete Zarria) - http://flic.kr/p/5qoRbB

By state law in Massachusetts, employers must buy back some portion of employees’ unused vacation time when they leave their jobs, unless the employer stipulates a “use-it-or-los-it” policy up front. In my own job, I can bank up to 1.5 times my annual vacation time and carry it year-to-year and even sell it back when I leave my job. But that’s only at the end of employment and a very limited amount. And it doesn’t include sick time. That’s probably even more generous than most private-sector employers

Not so for employees of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State employees can sell back up to 15 weeks of unused time and in some cases, such as Massport—which runs the seaports, airports, and some other transportation conduits— they can sell it back annually.

At the University of Massachusetts, they paid out $8.7 million in unused-time buybacks just last year. All told, the state paid $50 million last year, including $90,500 to departing employees of the Governor’s Office, which is notable because Patrick has been a critic of the practice.

Meanwhile, we have record unemployment and the state is crying poor-mouth as it cuts programs and aid to local cities and towns, while calling for increases in taxes and fees. Yet, a departing employee at Salem State College retired with a $151,000 buyback last year. The State Police force as a group paid $5.6 million in buybacks, while the Trial Courts paid $3.7 million.

I’ll believe their cries of empty pockets and threats to cut programs unless they raise taxes, when I see them start to cut these and other massive perks from the budget. They may claim that we’re in a Great Recession, but they certainly don’t act like it.

Photo by Kjetil Ree Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.

In this current recession, the fiscal pain is spread across the entire country, but some states are doing better than others. Forbes magazine has done a state-by-state analysis and found that states that vote liberal Democrat the most (i.e. “Blue” states)are suffering the worst, while Red states are doing the best.

The top 5 worst states—Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California, and New Jersey—and eight of the top 10 (add in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Wisconsin) are all very blue states. The top 5 best states are Utah, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia. While New Hampshire and Virginia are said to lean Democratic, New Hampshire is a very fiscally conservative state, which still doesn’t have an income tax and which doesn’t have a “professional” legislature perpetually in session.

(Solidly one-party means that the party has an advantage of 10 percent or greater in party affiliation over the other; leaning means a 5- to 10-percent advantage.)

Forbes’ metrics for each state included unfunded pension liabilities, changes in tax revenue, credit ratings, debt as a percentage of Gross State Product, debt per capita, growth expectations for employment and the state economy, net migrations and a “moocher ratio” that compares government employees, pension burdens and Medicaid enrollees to private-sector employment.

None of the 10 worst states are solidly Republican and only one, Mississippi, leans slightly Republican, i.e. less than 5-percentage-point advantage in party enrollment.

And why are we doing so much worse?

It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois’ Center for State Policy and Leadership.

Strong unions, by their endorsement power, create an incentive in Democrat politicians to throw pork in the direction of union members, like big construction projects and more social services. And Democrats generally like Nanny Government that creates a program for every human need, not to mention the rampant nepotism, patronage, and corruption that overwhelming one-party by either party typically brings.

We shouldn’t discount the effect that differtent industries have on the rankings. Many of these bastions of unionism are also big manufacturing centers, which are doing the worst in this recession. Agricultural Nebraska is going to do much better than automaking Michigan, for instance.

[Link via Bluegrass Pundit]

The Boston Herald reports today that clerk-magistrates in Massachusetts and their assistants get a little know perk of their job worth about $2.5 million last year. When a suspect is arrested outside of regular court hours, state law requires that bail be set within six hours (or denied) so one of the magistrates is on call at all times. The clerk-magistrate or assistant sets bail when a regular court hearing can’t be scheduled in time. If a defendant makes bail then the magistrate gets $40 directly from the suspect as a bail fee.

But critics are saying that direct payment to the magistrate creates a conflict-of-interest and diverts funds from the taxpayer-funded judicial system. The conflict arises because the magistrate only gets the fee if the defendants makes bail and thus there’s a financial incentive to set low bail.

Most of the clerk magistrates are appointed for life and their salaries start at $110,000. Most assistant clerks start at $84,000. On top of that base pay, 77 of the 210 magistrates and assistants collected $15,000 in bail fees, and 24 of them made $25,00 or more. The top earner made $54,000 extra in 2009. in 2007, it was $76,000. To earn this largesse, they must be on call one weekend and 11 weeknights a month.

Defenders of the system say that the direct payments are necessary in order to attract people to the jobs and compensate them properly. To that I respond, 10 percent unemployment. There are plenty of people who would do the jobs. But the defense is still particularly weak.

It’s “unrealistic to assume you should ask people to work beyond their normal hours of employment without any sort of compensation,” said Keith E. McDonough, clerk magistrate in Lawrence District Court and vice president of the Association of Magistrates and Assistant Clerks. McDonough earned $28,927 in fees last year.

No one is suggesting they work beyond normal hours of employment without compensation, but perhaps the compensation should come in a form that doesn’t set up a conflict of interest.

Experts point out that the system mirrors that in the private sector. Many private-sector employees, particularly those covered under union contracts, receive extra pay for working overtime, said Fred Foulkes, director of Boston University’s Human Resources Policy Institute.

That’s for hourly employees. In the Dreaded Private Sector, salaried employees, which the magistrates and assistants surely are, do not get overtime for extra hours worked. It’s part of the job.

And although the state may be missing out on millions in fees, at least the suspect-funded system does not strain the Massachusetts coffers, he noted. “From a taxpayer perspective, I think it’s a very good deal,” he said. “It’s not coming from the state’s budget.”

Which addresses the financial aspect, but not the conflict-of-interest aspect, neatly sidestepping the important part of this criticism.

State Bail Administrator Michael J. McEneaney defends the system, saying the fees were instituted to attract and retain employees who wouldn’t do the after-hours work otherwise. “Don’t trash it unless you have a better system you want to propose,” he said.

The classic defense of those who have no better defense. Better systems have been proposed, including one mentioned in the article. Unless, of course, when McEneaney says “better” he means better for the clerk-magistrates’ and clerk-assistants.

Photo by Joe Gratz - http://flic.kr/p/bkUna