Editorials
Wednesday, March 25, 1998FACED with the need to cut state spending, legislators are thrashing around looking for alternatives to laying off government employees. In some cases they are trapped by their own previous generosity to public employees, who frequently play a vital role in their winning election. The state is stuck with
benefits it can’t affordTake the idea of curtailing state-funded health and life insurance benefits for spouses and dependents. The Public Employees' Health Fund is a growing burden. The fund cost the state $53 million in 1990; in 1999 it will cost $229 million. Premiums for retirees will cost $104 million, nearly double what was paid in 1990.
Full health coverage for retirees and spouses is a benefit that is enjoyed by state employees but few in the private sector. Curtailing some of those provisions may appear worth considering, particularly to the taxpayers who finance the state benefits but don't enjoy such benefits themselves. But its prospects of providing immediate relief for the state's financial problems are virtually nil.
The public employee unions have of course fought the proposal and the Senate Human Resources Committee has killed it. Co-chairman Brian Kanno warns that legislators will continue to look at other measures to cut spending that the unions may not like. We would be surprised, however, if any such proposal was approved.
The reason why this idea wouldn't help is that state employees would go to court to block any such cut on the ground that the benefit was a contractual obligation. The resulting litigation could tie up the measure for years. The only way to avoid this problem would be to make the restriction applicable only to people hired after the change went into effect, which would mean negligible immediate savings.
On the other side of the Capitol, the House Labor Committee planned to gut a bill for an across-the-board pay cut for all state employees and instead allow state workers to voluntarily take one day off a month without pay. The pay cut would have run into the same obstacle as the proposed reduction in spouses' health benefits -- a violation of a contractual obligation.
This would work only if the unions agreed to renegotiate their contracts -- contracts that provided raises the state can't afford. That is not much more likely than the prospect of large numbers of workers voluntarily taking time off without pay to save money for the state.
CHARACTER development has been an integral part of the Boy Scouts since it was founded in England 90 years ago, but its moral code is not universally accepted. Those who disagree with that code need not apply. The California Supreme Court has now ruled that prospective Scouts can be denied admission because of their sexual preference or their refusal to pledge allegiance to God. Any other ruling would have shattered the organization's famous oath and diluted its values. Scouts discrimination
Nine-year-old twin brothers in Orange County challenged the Scouts' requirement that they pledge allegiance to God, and a former Eagle Scout sued after being denied a post as scoutmaster in Berkeley because he is gay. The argument in both cases was that the Boy Scouts were in violation of California laws that prohibit business establishments from discriminating against people on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.
California's high court had ruled earlier that the Boys Club in Santa Clara could not exclude girls and that country clubs could not exclude women because both were open to the public for recreational activities. Chief Justice Ronald George pointed out that the Boy Scouts are different in an important way, as "an expressive social organization whose primary function is the inculcation of values in its youth members."
The decision contrasts with a New Jersey state appeals court ruling that the Boy Scouts cannot ban gays. There is no similar federal anti-discrimination law that applies to the organization. Hawaii law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations includes religion but not sexual preference, and the Scouts would argue, as they did in California, that they are not a public accommodation.
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have been hugely successful in building their organizations and instilling their values. For government to force them to breach their values would be a regrettable intrusion. People in the scouting movement who object to these policies should campaign from within for their revision or form separate groups.
THAILAND is having economic troubles but its tourism industry is enjoying success in attracting visitors from two new markets -- formerly communist Russia and now-nominally communist China. Economic reforms in both countries are producing people who can afford to travel, and their governments are no longer stopping them. New tourist markets
The Far Eastern Economic Review reports that Russian tourists since the collapse of Soviet communism have revived Pattaya, a beach resort southeast of Bangkok that had fallen victim to sleaze. Russian visitors to Thailand reached 25,000 in 1993, 59,000 in 1996 and may have gone as high as 80,000 in 1997. Most spend at least a few days in Pattaya.
The Chinese influx is much bigger -- 440,000 last year, 500,000 expected this year. They go sightseeing, shop and watch sexy shows that aren't readily available at home. Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan are also receiving large numbers of newly prosperous Chinese tourists.
Hawaii should be getting in on the action. China, with its spectacular economic growth and huge population, has great potential for Hawaii tourism. Russia also could be a significant source.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
