The Campus Workers Question

With the time for renewing campus labor contracts upon us, the usual sympathetic suspects have sprung into action across campus, most notably Students Organizing United with Labor (SOUL). More interesting, and certainly more relevant to the discussion from a factual standpoint, is the smaller contingent of students questioning the rather boisterous claims of the Union/SOUL coalition. By way of background, the union rejected an initial offer in the 2-3% gradual increase range, and then again narrowly voted to reject an offer of 3.5% over the next three years.

In a recent set of dueling editorials blazened across the soiled pages of the Chicago Maroon, the attitude of both sides makes itself subtly, but openly, apparent. Senior Andrew Lees wrote to question the validity of the "4%" demand coming from student groups, and he raises a number of strong points:

The CPI grew at an average annual rate of 2.53 percent in the 12 months ending in October 2007. Inflation measured by the Core CPI—so named because it excludes energy and food, the two most volatile components of the price level—was at 2.37 percent, well below the Union’s 4-percent mark. Both of these numbers, you will note, are below the University’s three percent offer...When questioning SOUL members about the accuracy of the four percent, they insist that the cost of living in Chicago is rising faster than in the rest of the nation. This is also untrue: Headline CPI for the Chicago-Gary-Kenosha area grew at a 2.54-percent average annual rate, and Core CPI for the area estimated the inflation rate at just 1.95 percent.
(Emphasis is mine)

He further lambasted the present campaign for the arbitrary nature of the 4% figure, since it does not correlate to either the empirical data, or the anecdotal assertions also being used to bolster the demand. A week later, a member of the workers union wrote to argue that "Inflation data does not reflect reality." An interesting premise, to say the least, but he makes several claims that demand further exploration, due to their potentially misleading implications:

[The CPI value of 2.53] hides the fact that inflation has been trending upward over the last year—the average over the last 6 months has been 3.51 percent

One has to wonder, then, what the union found unsatisfactory about the 3.5% increase that they voted to reject?

The author also mentions rising property taxes and rent values, both of which are valid concerns - yet the CPI breakdown clearly shows that rent and housing costs are factored into both the national and the regional calculations. Most confusing is his claim that:

[T]he inflation rate for gasoline, now at 26.1 percent, affects us greatly. [This] figures are not reflected in Lees’s figure of 2.53 percent, but they are reflected in our lives.

Hmm, call me crazy, but as I undestand it that is exactly what seperates CPI from Core CPI - the CPI value of 2.53% is higher precisely because it does include the price of fuel, which tends to have a much higher inflation value and raise the entire metric. The author closes with an ad hominem exhortation to consult with the workers about how much of a cost of living pay raise they deserve - a valid request, so long as the workers are consulting with the facts.

Chavez, Putin, McCain and The Heisman - Daily Reading - 12/06/2007

Today's articles include positive analysis of both Thompson and McCain, as well as a look at college football superstars' shortcomings in the NFL and some continuing coverage on the landmark defeat on Chavez. I hope to have more to say on the Chavez subject in the next day or two, in particular the lukewarm reception the outcome has had in the US press - not that anyone ought to be surprised. Nonetheless, the outcome is historic and encouraging, whether some choose to ignore it or not.

I've made my feelings known on Thompson before, particularly his excellent white paper on tax reform. As for McCain, a reader writes to argue his credentials as an unorthodox and atypical candidate - a position that McCain seems to relish. The reader writes

I personally like his willingness to break with the Republican orthodoxy on issues like immigration, tax policy, campaign finance, farm subsidies, and global warming, as well as his character and judgment.

In truth, an apparent mixed bag. Although his willingness to call a horse a horse when it comes to spending is certainly encouraging, I remain unconvinced of the merits of McCain/Feingold, an opinion the write does not seem to share.

At any rate, a set of excellent reads. More to come - Enjoy.

• "A Tale of Two Dictators" - National Review


• "The case for John McCain" - The Economist (Hat Tip: AWF)


• "Why This Southern Baptist Minister Supports Fred Thompson" - Red State


• "Heisman Is No Key to NFL Glory" - Why do so few winners make it in the pros? - OpinionJournal

Daily Reading - 12/04/2007

What we're reading at The Oath:

• "Fred is Dead? Reports are Premature" - Human Events


• "Cut Tax Rates, Not the Fed Funds Rate" - National Review


• "Sen. John McCain & Sen. Joe Lieberman: It's inexcusable for Congress not to fund troops in Iraq" - The Union Leader


• "Venezuelans Rain on Hugo" - Opinion Journal


• Sony OLED display unboxed (With Pictures!) - TV Snob (via Gizmodo)

Fred Thompson's Window of Opportunity

Of all the oddities of the current election cycle, I am most puzzled by Fred Thompson's failure to seize upon the numerous opportunities he has been handed since entering the race. I won't pretend that I am unbiased - he's certainly the candidate I am the most intrigued with, especially in light of his penchant for "straight talk" and sticking to his ideology. More conservative, it would seem, than Giuliani and with more potential for Christian Right appeal than Romney, he has all the makings of the popular candidate. His proposals, moreover, have been by far the most substantial, and carry a broad appeal - see as an example his Tax Reform Plan, which proposes lower corporate tax rates, repealing the AMT, and instating an opt-in flat tax with 10% and 25% flat income brackets. Certainly more food for thought than the usual "Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent." The general feeling when he announced his candidacy, in fact, was that people want him to assume the role of the consensus GOP candidate. He just doesn't seem to have done it.

The Times wrote on Friday that Thompson is viewed as lazy and that his campaign events are haphazardly prepared and often surprisingly sparse. While Thompson is quick to point out that this style of campaigning was far more regular in the past, and indeed the norm for Reagan, this is not a typical election cycle. The lack of a clear Republican choice, the deluge of media attention, both new and old, and the particularly partisan state of politics has created an environment that demands incredible amounts of action on the part of any of the candidates.

All that said, it seems like Thompson has been dealt at least one more chance to make a run at a bounce, especially in the South, where he polls the strongest (RCP average here). The combination of a recent, but uncapitalized, NRLC endorsement of his surprisingly Libertarian stance on Abortion, and a strong showing at the most recent debate, mean that he has another chance to seize momentum in the race that desperately wants a front runner. His best strategy - a marketing blitz touting his more common-sense conservative credentials and his strong endorsements, and an increase in his presence in the states he is competitive in. If he can remind people why they wanted him to enter the race, and why so many have quipped that he's the candidate people want to support, he might be able to turn some heads in Iowa and South Carolina, and turn his campaign around.