Category Archives: rights

Illinois and Money

Posted on by
Reply

The government of Illinois—a Democratic Party-controlled government at the time—reduced the cost of its public pension programs by passing a law reducing future cost growth, specifically, by reducing the size of future increases in pension payouts, without eliminating those increases.

Illinois’ Constitution has this to say on the matter of public pensions:

Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.

Illinois State Judge John Belz decided that the enacted law was a violation of Illinois’ constitution and struck the law.

The state of Illinois made a constitutionally protected promise to its employees concerning their pension benefits[.]

And

[I]t is clear that if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired.

Yet what “qualifies as a benefit” is a matter of statutory definition, a matter set by the Illinois’ legislature. Belz’ ruling indicates that these legislative definitions are, in fact, amendments to Illinois’ constitution—else those definitions must be changeable at legislative initiative, as the law Belz has struck did.

Among his objections is this:

The Act adds new language to the Pension Code….

Now the whole Pension Code, enacted by the legislature and not by constitutional convention, is suddenly a part of the State’s constitution.

Belz’ ruling goes on in that vein.

Belz also seems to have misunderstood what the legislature has done in concrete terms. As he clearly understands, the legislature acted to reduce the size of future pension payouts, changing, for instance, the way a (future) pensioner’s 3% annual increase in pension payment is calculated. The pensioner still gets an increase, though. A smaller increase, as any third grade pupil in arithmetic easily understands, still is an increase. A pensioner’s pension in no way is diminished or impaired, by the definition of increase.

Finally, a practical question: a State’s police powers are an assertion that the State can use its governance offices to act to protect public safety and welfare—to prevent a State from being unable to honor its financial commitments and defaulting altogether, for instance. Thus, if Illinois’ government is unable to act to pay its pension obligations, how does Belz propose those obligations be met?

The judge screwed up, and the State is appealing.

 

Belz’ summary judgment order can be read here.

Free Speech, PRC Style

Posted on by
Reply

During visits to more than 20 schools, the regional paper [Liaoning Daily] wrote last week, it found exactly what it said it was looking for: some professors compared Chinese Communist Party co-founder Mao Zedong to ancient emperors, a blasphemy to party ideology upholding Mao as a break from the country’s feudal past. Other scholars were caught pointing out the party’s failures after taking power in 1949. Some repeatedly praised “Western” ideas such as a separation of powers in government.

“Dear teachers, because your profession demands something higher of you, and because of the solemnity and particularity of the university classroom, please do not speak this way about China!” implored the article….

Yep.

Recall, also, the PRC’s ongoing suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, in cynical repudiation of its commitment to the Hong Kongese and the Brits as part of the turnover agreement between the Brits and the PRC.

Privacy and Government

Posted on by
Reply

…and government shoe-squeezing.

The No. 2 official at the Justice Department [Deputy Attorney General James Cole] delivered a blunt message last month to Apple Inc executives: new encryption technology that renders locked iPhones impervious to law enforcement would lead to tragedy. A child would die, he said, because police wouldn’t be able to scour a suspect’s phone, according to people who attended the meeting.

The naked panic-mongering is something we’d expect to get out of the press, but for a high-ranking government official to spout such nonsense is…unseemly. For Cole to masquerade his extreme outlier as the trend that must result, though, is dishonest. But it’s all good—DoJ must be able to snoop into Americans’ communications on DoJ’s own recognizance. Because, of course, no American administration would abuse its discretion.

This comes on the heels of another DoJ overwrought claim.

Last month, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey said new Apple and Google encryption schemes would “allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”

This is the risk a free people take; it’s a risk the free American people have said repeatedly we’re willing and anxious to take. Because such encryption schemes also would “allow people to place themselves beyond an overreaching government.” Which overreach the crocodile tears and manufactured crises of Cole and Comey demonstrate this government is committing.

Give up some freedom—some privacy from government snooping—in order to have security? Pssh. Without the freedom, without the privacy from government snooping, there can never be any security.

Teachers Union Misbehavior

Posted on by
Reply

In a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ten teachers say the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association, forces them to participate in collective bargaining, whether they’re union members or not; pressures teachers to campaign for selected political candidates, whether the teachers actually support the candidate or not; and collects union dues, whether the collectee is a union member or not.

Under California state law, a union that is recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative for a school district, such as the CTA, can enter into an organizational security or “agency shop agreement which, in lay terms, means that while it is not mandatory for a teacher in the district to become a member of the local union, they must pay fees to the union for it to negotiate on their behalf. The rule is a condition of employment for all teachers.

Financially, this doesn’t involve chump change, either:

CTA members and non-members alike pay the full annual dues, which total around $1,000, with non-members only able to request reimbursement of the portion deemed separate from bargaining expenses.

The union does the deeming, too.

This is an affront to dignity, to individual liberty. This caps individual freedom of opportunity by taking the fruits of an individual’s labor for another’s purpose without the taken-from’s permission. This denies the individual his opportunity to cut his own deal with his employer. This demands an individual perform tasks to which he has not agreed, which are not part of his contract, and for which he is not paid.

This is a denial of opportunity by making even the chance of that labor conditioned on the power to take or to compel.

It’s union abuse.

Another Assault on Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

This time by a major cellular telephone company: Verizon.

…it has emerged that Verizon Wireless has been silently tracking around 100 million mobile customers using a supercookie that can’t be opted out of.

This is an especially nefarious invasion: the “cookie” lets Verizon track your movements on the Web—every page. And they then peddle that information to any advertiser willing to pay up.

Indeed, “supercookie” is a bit of a misnomer. Cookies store stuff on your computer that Web sites that you visit use when you revisit them. Often, it’s useful and beneficial information: how you like that Web site presented, for instance, or login information (beneficial only if it’s a convenience to read an article, and not giving access to your financial or other personal information to that site), and so on.

This thing, instead, enters the stream of information being exchanged between your browser and the Web site and

injects a new HTTP header every time you visit a website. Not just Verizon websites—any web resource that is accessed via Verizon’s network (i.e. everything). This header, called X-UIDH, contains a unique identifier that’s tied to your Verizon account. Your web browser (or any other app on your phone that uses HTTP) always receives this header with your unique ID—there’s nothing you can do to stop it.

Three things make this even worse than it sounds.

  • they didn’t tell you about it
  • you can’t block it or even opt out
  • not only Verizon can use the resulting information—any third party can access it

Verizon says it’s only on their cellular network, only using your Web accesses via your cell phone. So far.

It’s unconscionable that a major company would pull such a stunt; although it’s sadly common. It’s unlikely that Verizon will stop this invasion. It’s necessary, then, to get onto your newly elected and minted Congressman and…encourage…him or her to look into this and to legislate to protect our privacy.