The tyranny of government unions
If the corruption in little Bell, Calif., were merely an isolated case of bizarre circumstances, the rest of us could laugh and be glad we live elsewhere. But, sadly, Bell is a small picture of what is crippling the country.
Bell is a “city” of 37,000 people and only 2.5 acres just outside of Los Angeles. Despite its small size and relatively poor populace, the city’s chief administrative officer was earning almost $800,000 a year. His assistant took in $376,288 annually, and the police chief was taking home $457,000. They’re now all in jail on corruption charges.
What galls us is that while they were “officially” public servants, they were actually fleecing the public for inordinate private gain. But we are coming to understand that is what everybody who works for the government does through his or her powerful unions.
In August, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told the nation through The Wall Street Journal that the public service employee union was bankrupting his state. He reported that “roughly 80 cents of every government dollar in California goes to employee compensation and benefits.” As California goes, so goes the nation.
He shared this horror story:
“Few Californians in the private sector have $1 million in savings, but that’s effectively the retirement account they guarantee to public employees who opt to retire at age 55 and are entitled to a monthly, inflation-protected check of $3,000 for the rest of their lives.”
And this one:
“This year, retirement benefits . . . are destined to grow so much faster than state revenues that they threaten to suck up the money for every other program in the state budget.”
In other words, the government of California is soon to become one big pension program for former government employees and to have no other purpose. Where does that leave working Californians and their children but without a government at all?
In October, David Brooks turned the glare of his New York Times column on public employee compensation in New Jersey that is preventing that state from undertaking the sort of essential infrastructure improvement that was financially a cinch 50 years ago:
“New Jersey can’t afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state’s employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company. These benefits costs are rising by 16 percent a year.
“New York City has to strain to finance its schools but must support 10,000 former cops who have retired before age 50.
“California can’t afford new water projects, but state cops often receive 90 percent of their salaries when they retire at 50. The average corrections officer there makes $70,000 a year in base salary and $100,000 with overtime (California spends more on its prison system than on higher education).”
And this week in The Wall Street Journal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty made a moral case against public service employee unions in principle. Adding his own horror stories (such as the fact that the average federal employee earns over $123,000 a year in pay and benefits, twice what people in the private sector get), he closes with this paradigm shift:
“The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.”
We political theorists have a technical term for people in government using public authority for private advantage instead of public service. We call it “tyranny.” These unions are organized not to help their members serve the public better but to maximize pay and benefits while minimizing work. Taxpayers want just the opposite (within the bounds of decency, of course). Essentially, government unions are public enemies. Insofar as they control our government (and they do), they have institutionalized tyranny from within our public administration.
The coming budget wars, the fight for national solvency and perhaps even for national sovereignty, will have to face the enemy within.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top68 Comments to “The tyranny of government unions”
Govt unions in Cali are the tail that wags the dog. Teachers, cops, prison guards have pension and benefits packages right up their with our other public servants in the halls of congress.
Sooner or later the Fed govt will have to bail out California.
Too bad Chris Christie is not a California resident
Report comment to moderator
Hm, that is nice ….
Report comment to moderator
George Meany always opposed govt unions. A sensible opposition given that they have civil service grievance boards.
As an employee of a military hospital I’ve seen first hand how unionization (American Federation of Govt Employees) has impacted the care we provide.
Report comment to moderator
we have seperation of Church and State, may be we need seperation of Unions and State.
Report comment to moderator
Obamacare and numerous other recent bills give unfair preferences and benefits to people in unions vs. the rest of us. This violates the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
This is all part of the Third Way an economic philosophy adopted by Bill and Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats. This is part of the broader Social Democracy movement which revolves around the working class and unions.
Report comment to moderator
You had to mention New Jersey.
I don’t think these pensions are sustainable, and I have a feeling the courts will be redefining the pensions.
Obamacare is also giving waivers to some big corporations. Yet another instance of some being more equal than others.
Report comment to moderator
A misleading introduction to the column. The corruption and extravagant compensation of city executive in Bell, California has nothing to do with unionized employees. As executive managers, the individuals involved weren’t unionized. The only purpose to starting the column with this corruption is to poison the well and deliberately create a false impression or association.
Unionized gov’t employees are the last vestiges of a middle class in America. After destroying blue collar middle class with outsourcing and union busting techniques, the corporate elites have set their focus on the white collar professionals. Starving the gov’t of income through successive tax cuts (which don’t stimulate the economy) has allowed them to demand lower labour costs. In truth, if the state had the testicular fortitude to tax at 1970s or even 1990s levels, labour costs would be easily covered. Instead we are at the point where the elites are attempting to eliminate the middle class due to the elite’s unwillingness to properly fund the state.
Pensions were freely negotiated and contractually agreed upon. To break these agreements is a breach of contract. Whether or not the pensions are extravagant is a moot point (in comparison to executive salaries, they’re not), they are part of an agreement and must be adhered to. The inability of the state to pay the pensions due is a failure of management not unions. Management should plan ahead for pension costs by creating a separate account for pension costs as they occur not they are due. To illustrate through a personal anecdote, I’ve worked for two school boards both of whom had a very similar clause in the collective agreement — retirement gratuities. One board planned ahead and deposited money as a teacher accumulate gratuity credits whereas the other board budgeted on a pay as needed basis ie only when the gratuity became due. The latter is an example of bad management as opposed to the former.
Report comment to moderator
And the dishonest war on public servants continues.
D.C. Innes bases his argument here on some flagrant lies. And yeah, I will call them lies without hesitation because the only other explanation is that he’s too stupid to understand the article he uses as a source, and I don’t think he’s stupid.
So, lies. The most important one is here:
Despite its small size and relatively poor populace, the city’s chief administrative officer was earning almost $800,000 a year. His assistant took in $376,288 annually, and the police chief was taking home $457,000. They’re now all in jail on corruption charges.
What galls us is that while they were “officially” public servants, they were actually fleecing the public for inordinate private gain. But we are coming to understand that is what everybody who works for the government does through his or her powerful unions.
Innes gets the salary figures correct and also correctly notes that they’re in jail on corruption charges. But he neglects to connect the two, when in fact the article makes clear that they were taking home such enormous sums because they were stealing.
From the article:
So what we have here is case of flagrant embezzlement and fraud, NOT overpaid civil servants — but Innes wants you to believe this is just the cushy life of the public employee, because in his very next paragraph he says “that is what everybody who works for the government does through his or her powerful unions.”
World publishes dubious and questionable claims in its blogs every day, but this is really such flagrant dishonesty that I hope the editor will look at it more closely and retract it.
No, D.C. Innes, this is NOT what “everybody who works for the government” does, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying so. This is disgraceful, even for World.
Report comment to moderator
Again on pensions, the value of most pensions depends on the contributions. In most cases, private or public, pensions are based on matching contributions, the corporate entity matching the employee’s contributions. Hence, the value of the public employee pensions reflect the employee’s own foresight to contribute a substantial portion of his/her salary. I contribute over 10% of my salary to my teacher’s pension plan and in exchange I receive a better pension than those who contribute the average of about 7.5%.
As for Innes’ examples, I find it instructive that he cites police and correctional officers — the American insistence on maintaining the highest imprisonment rate in the world does have an affect on the bottom line. Here too is an example of bad management and misplaced priorities; there are alternate means to maintaining law and order. Similar to the success found in the social democracies in maintaining a viable middle class, the social democracies also point the way to a less coercive and punitive means of maintaining law and order. Also, police/correctional officers are frequently the beneficiaries of the conservative law and order agenda. Fear a dominant theme in American politics has allowed the correctional industry to obtain benefits not seen by gov’t employees.
Finally, unions do work to prevent exploitation and maintain a middle class income for its members. The pay and pension I receive is a direct result of unionization as opposed to the pay and pension teachers receive in jurisdictions without union protection. Without unions, employees receive far less in pay and benefits, job protection and health and safety protection.
Report comment to moderator
The city of Bell isn’t 2.5 acres, but 2.5 square miles.
HRW #7, “A misleading introduction to the column”
D.C. is dealing with several issues: public servant salaries, pensions and unions.
“Unionized gov’t employees are the last vestiges of a middle class in America”
Huh? That’s crazy talk. The so-called middle class is the vast majority of Americans and most of them don’t work for the government and many aren’t in unions.
“Starving the gov’t of income through successive tax cuts”
You do realize that the present American administration has spent more money than all previous administrations. That’s hardly starving. Only a socialist would consider tax cuts evil which hinder the government from excessive bloated largess and leave the money in the hands of those who earned it.
“Pensions were freely negotiated and contractually agreed upon. To break these agreements is a breach of contract”
That’s true. The error is with the government contracts in the first place.
“Without unions, employees receive far less in pay and benefits, job protection and health and safety protection.”
Well, of course. That’s the point. Unions make everything more expensive because of higher pay and less work. Unions also increase unemployment because corporations can afford far fewer of these employees who live high on the hog.
“the social democracies also point the way to a less coercive and punitive means of maintaining law and order.”
Tell us more. How do they do this exactly in Europe which is a hotbed of riots at the moment?
Report comment to moderator
Government unions should be illegal. They are a conflict of interest, and they’re probably the closest thing to a legalized mafia we have here in the US. It’s extremely difficult to get rid of a bad government worker; and once they have acquired any kind of seniority (5 years or so), it’s almost impossible. So once they’re on the public payroll, they remain a millstone around the taxpayer’s neck as long as they live. And these ‘freely negotiated contracts’ are often put in place by people who have made inside deals—sort of a ‘you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours’ arrangement. The suckers paying the tax bill usually have no clue what’s going on.
‘Public servant’? I’ve known a few good ones, but the term is rapidly becoming an oxymoron. A ‘public servant’ worthy of the name is efficient and conscientious about both their job performance and the tax dollars they are spending. The quality of their work speaks for itself. They don’t view their position as a vehicle for oppression or revenge against businesses or other members of the public. Someone like that doesn’t need to hide behind a government union. I think it’s the bad apples (and the mediocre) that benefit the most from the protection of government unions. And that’s what is bankrupting so many city governments.
Report comment to moderator
Government employees deserve the same collective bargaining power that employees in many other sectors enjoy. Conservatism in general seems to thrive on finding various groups to convince people to hate and resent, which is bad enough in itself; but turning the gun the very people who make the country function is scandalous.
Admittedly, not every government employee is excellent. But many are, and few is any are really collecting paychecks for sitting on their duffs.
And despite Innes repeating the deceptive $123,000 “average” compensation package claim, government employees are not overpaid.
Report comment to moderator
Schwarzenegger’s article suggests that California has made some bad decisions, but that’s a state-level problem. At the federal level, employee retirement is largely comprised of the Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to a private sector 401(k). The employee contributes to it, and the agency matches the contribution. (So do many, though not all, private-sector employers with 401(k) programs.) Just as with a 401(k), the employee selects investments for the TSP funds, and at retirement, is eligible to start to withdraw them.
There is nothing at the federal level like the taxpayer-funded retirement guarantees in California. Other states also have their own systems that may or may not be similar. So Innes is again being deceptive in implying that what’s happening in California is just a snapshot of the whole country.
Report comment to moderator
…turning the gun the very people who make the country function is scandalous.
Flat out hilarious.
Report comment to moderator
Unions and their corrupt government negotiators (of both parties) are taking entire cities—and perhaps eventually states— down the hole of insolvency. When there is no more money to pay them, I’m afraid we’ll see a lot of ugliness. I guess I have limited expectations of people who spend their entire careers actively hiding behind unions and the corrupt atmosphere engender by the entitlement mentality rampant in so many government workplaces.
I think modern government employment tests a person’s character because the corruption is so pervasive. Maybe it’s always been that way. I do thank God that there are as many good employees as there are, but good workers don’t have an entitlement mentality, nor do they need corruption to keep their jobs. Unfortunately, with the union’s protection, the bad apples are more likely to drive away good workers rather than the other way around.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
D.C. is dealing with several issues: public servant salaries, pensions and unions.
yet he doesn’t separate them so in effect he conflates executive corruption and wages with unions when in fact the corrupt public officials were on the management side of the table. This is deliberately misleading.
Huh? That’s crazy talk. The so-called middle class is the vast majority of Americans and most of them don’t work for the government and many aren’t in unions.
Depending on definitions the middle class can range from 25 to 66 % of the population. In the American standard model everyone is middle class yet the reality is a growing gap between the top 5% and the rest.
Only a socialist would consider tax cuts evil which hinder the government from excessive bloated largess and leave the money in the hands of those who earned it.
The standard Republican model has been to starve the beast in hopes gov’t programs will collapse and/or spending will be reigned in. This is akin to cutting back to part time work in the hope your household spending will also decline – yet not reach a prior agreement with the household before cutting back on your income.
Thus, tax cuts are irresponsible unless there is a clear plan on how to balance the budget with a lower income. To think revenues will magically increase and thus you can avoid cutting back is naïve. Before the gov’t plans to cut their income they should also plan ahead to cut their spending. In this case, both parties and presidents are irresponsible – this is bad management not the fault of gov’t unions.
A former Canadian finance minister (Paul Martin – Liberal) used to deliberately underestimate gov’t income budget accordingly and then when a surplus occurred he took all the credit. Perhaps the American parties can follow his lead
Unions make everything more expensive because of higher pay and less work. Unions also increase unemployment because corporations can afford far fewer of these employees who live high on the hog.
Unions do make labour costs higher but I doubt they negatively affect productivity. To prove this, one would have to compare productivity rates between union and non-union without other factors intervening. In a period of technological change, productivity is more a result of technology not labour.
I’ve always wondered how one could claim that employers would hire more workers if they were only cheaper. If they need 250 workers to assemble a car, the company isn’t going to hire an additional 10 to sit around just because the 250 workers are cheaper non-unionized workers.
Tell us more. How do they do this exactly in Europe which is a hotbed of riots at the moment?
There’s a riot in the Netherlands or Scandinavia?? I must have missed it. The riots are in the UK which follows the US model. In any event the minor amount of political violence pales in comparison to the criminal violence found in the US
Report comment to moderator
Mac: I am sorry you are so ignorant and cynical. Most government employees are talented, capable and dedicated. It’s sad that you feel the need to insult them.
Report comment to moderator
Conan:
Apology accepted.
I didn’t insult anyone.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t insult anyone … except for the many talented, capable and hard-working government employees that you said was “flat out hilarious” to describe as making the country run.
I’m sure they wouldn’t be at all offended to know you think that what they do for a living is hilarious.
Report comment to moderator
No Conan, not insulting them. You, maybe. Not them. The vast majority of govt workers aren’t necessary to “mak[ing] the country function.” That notion is ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
So if the vast majority aren’t necessary, then they’re getting taxpayer-funded salaries unjustly. They’re doing unnecessary work and getting paid from public funds, which they don’t really deserve because their work is unimportant.
But no insult, no sirree. They’re just sponging off the people is all, in their overpaid, unfireable positions, which maybe doesn’t speak well of their character that they would do so.
But you’re not insulting anyone … except maybe those of us who respect government employees more than you do.
Report comment to moderator
Conan: Sure, I’ll go along with a lot of that. No way the positions most of them hold should exist. Govt’s way too big. I don’t begrudge many of those employees, though. A lot of them probably haven’t thought through the moral ramifications of their employment–they need to eat just like the rest of us. Their victims of the govt schools just like many of the rest of us are, where we’re taught to worship the State. We weren’t taught to cast a critical eye at the notion of State hugeness.
However, I’m sure many of them are sponging and all that, too.
Still, my post at number 14 wasn’t directed that way. It was pointed at the silly notion of yours that our country needs all those govt workers in order to “function.”
Report comment to moderator
*their* = *they’re*
Report comment to moderator
#16 HRW “The standard Republican model has been to starve the beast in hopes gov’t programs will collapse and/or spending will be reigned in.”
Really? That would be great if it were true. The truth is that Republicans spend as much or more than Democrats. A pox on both their houses.
“This is akin to cutting back to part time work in the hope your household spending will also decline…”
First of all, there is no tax cut here. The tax cut was 10 years ago. The bill today is about increasing taxes or not. So the argument is more akin to a household that is spending itself into bankruptcy and then blames their employer for not paying them more.
“Unions do make labour costs higher but I doubt they negatively affect productivity. To prove this, one would have to compare productivity rates between union and non-union without other factors intervening.”
That would be a tremendous experiment. I wonder if it has been done before. It’s the sort of thing John Stossel would do. I’ll have to look around.
However, we have anecdotal evidence in that people in every culture people roll their eyes when you say it is a union job. It goes without saying that you are going to pay through the nose for people who seem to always be on coffee breaks or on strike and asking for more money.
In France and other socialist countries you can never be sure if you will get your mail or if the trains will be running because striking union workers are a national pastime.
P.S. I’d just like to say that I truly appreciate and enjoy debating you and am delighted with your passion for the American system. I mean that sincerely. It is so refreshing to debate a liberal and socialist even who comes clean and clearly states what they mean. It is extremely rare. Thank you for that.
Report comment to moderator
Really? That would be great if it were true. The truth is that Republicans spend as much or more than Democrats. A pox on both their houses.
By “starve the beast” I mean cutting back on income ie taxes/tariffs not on spending. The Reaganite idea was to starve the gov’t of income in the hopes that this would diminish spending and the size of the gov’t. Of course this didn’t work, as they didn’t plan ahead – where to cut was never discussed and in the US where politics and spending is local and pork is kosher, starving the beast meant starve some other part of the country. Again, this is bad management and Innes needs to point his finger at management not unions.
Currently there are neo-cons who claim “starving the beast” has finally worked and the entire edifice is falling down. However, by entire starving the beast they have managed to wreck the country in the process. Its as if a demolition crew misplaced the charges and brought down the whole city instead of the a derelict factory or apartment building.
First of all, there is no tax cut here. The tax cut was 10 years ago. The bill today is about increasing taxes or not. So the argument is more akin to a household that is spending itself into bankruptcy and then blames their employer for not paying them more.
It’s a temporary tax cut that needs to be renewed, hence it’s a tax cut. But even taking your scenario – you have a household that spent itself into bankruptcy and then refuses to look for sources of additional income. In both your and mine scenarios we draw a picture of bad management in both spending and income. Again, Innes needs to blame management not unions
However, we have anecdotal evidence in that people in every culture people roll their eyes when you say it is a union job. It goes without saying that you are going to pay through the nose for people who seem to always be on coffee breaks or on strike and asking for more money.
Depends on the culture and neighbourhood you are in. In the city I work in, very few roll their eyes at “a union job” instead they try to organize their non-union workplace since they understand the benefits of a union. The only ones who roll their eyes at a union job – is management and people who think they are management material. Interestingly I have anecdotal life experience which suggests people roll their eyes when you mention management, their salaries, job skills nepotism.
In France and other socialist countries you can never be sure if you will get your mail or if the trains will be running because striking union workers are a national pastime.
True the French strike a lot but that’s more a cultural historical thing. If you look at the social democratic structures in place in German/Dutch/Scandanavia workplaces, you will see a far lower strike rate then in the UK, US, and Canada – where adversary bargaining is the common method employed.
your passion for the American system.
I’m ethnocentric and realistic enough to realize that US is an integral part of the Western world and hence its reform is in my interest. BTW – I’m a socialist not a liberal. The two are not interchangeable.
Report comment to moderator
Considering the amount of taxes we spend, enacted by both parties, we need to recalibrate if we’re calling it “starving the beast.”
Report comment to moderator
#25 HRW “By “starve the beast” I mean cutting back on income ie taxes/tariffs not on spending. “
Yes, of course. We should follow a budget, with a spending reduction plan rather than just cutting off funds.
“In both your and mine scenarios we draw a picture of bad management in both spending and income. Again, Innes needs to blame management not unions.”
OK, but unions aren’t without criticism. I have no problem with unions if they are private and organized by workers. However, I oppose government collusion with them, like taking over car companies and handing them to the unions or providing taxpayer funded benefits that only go to the unions. Government unions are the worst, since the purse is bottomless in the public sector.
I also oppose mandates that people need to join unions to work and the use of dues to support only one political party. Unions helped to elect Obama and he immediately turned around and paid them millions as a big fat thank you. This sort of corruption should be illegal. It probably is.
” I’m a socialist not a liberal. The two are not interchangeable.”
Probably true depending on the subject. However in America a liberal is someone who probably agrees with socialism, but doesn’t know it and will never admit it. A socialist is a liberal who knows what he believes and isn’t afraid to admit it.
I am guessing you don’t agree with that. I’m interested in how you would clarify the difference in your mind between a liberal and a socialist.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, of course. We should follow a budget, with a spending reduction plan rather than just cutting off funds.
And that hasn’t happen since Reagan decided to starve the beast.
OK, but unions aren’t without criticism. I have no problem with unions if they are private and organized by workers. However, I oppose government collusion with them, like taking over car companies and handing them to the unions or providing taxpayer funded benefits that only go to the unions.
Gov’ts collude with unions only insomuch that they perceive it to be in their interest. This is not any different than collusion that occurs (more frequently I might add) between business and gov’t. Even Obama has sought advice and hired people from the private sector and whose influence is apparent in the watered down wall street reform bill.
Government unions are the worst, since the purse is bottomless in the public sector.
Not necessarily as the people represented by their elected officials can close the purse.
I also oppose mandates that people need to join unions to work and the use of dues to support only one political party.
This is a valid point. However, unions are legally mandated to act in the interests of their members. And if they believe political donations will advance their members’ interest they must do it. In any case, members can work to remove leaders who don’t act in their interests and bring forward motions to change union policies. As a union steward, I’ve seen the membership either force leaders out or force some form of compromise on a wide range of issues. Political donations were a hot button issue a few years back and it was put to a vote, the members voted in favor of continuing donations. Those against still work to change that.
Unions helped to elect Obama and he immediately turned around and paid them millions as a big fat thank you. This sort of corruption should be illegal. It probably is.
This is par for the course in American politics. Wall Street also made significant contributions to his campaign and he rewarded them (eg Larry Summers). In Congress its fairly easy to deduce why people cross party lines on particular votes – see their donors list. To change that, the US should consider banning political donations from all corporate groups including unions, corporations and even non-profits.
However in America a liberal is someone who probably agrees with socialism, but doesn’t know it and will never admit it.
A liberal still has faith in the free market and gov’t should only intervene when necessary. For him/her the market is governed by laws similar to natural laws and we need to understand and follow it. The dispute between free market followers is too the degree the gov’t is needed to correct or regulate. In doubt, a neo-con will error on the side of non-regulation whereas a modern liberal (a Kennedy type) would consider gov’t more frequently.
A socialist views the market as a human construct (nothing natural about it) and thus society is free to construct and manipulate the market to produce the results it considers important. A social democrat realizes that the market does tell him/her valuable information about society but still thinks that the economy is a reflection of the society we created and thus we can change the economy.
Report comment to moderator
Government unions are the worst, since the purse is bottomless in the public sector.
Correction: Government unions, like any other unions, are supported by membership dues. They do not have access to “bottomless” public funds.
For someone with so many strong opinions, you are misinformed on a lot of important things.
Report comment to moderator
This is what I experienced dealing with the silly servant union in CA, AK and NY along with Fed silly servants in DC.
A silly servant packs a gun to work and makes threats. The union wont’ allow the agency to fire the gun packer without a huge fight.
Silly servants are rated at higher job descriptions, and pay, than they are qualified for. They are overpaid as they are doing more menial work as best they can.
As supervisor, I could have contracted the work out at a less expensive cost; but union mandated, state rules won’t allow me to swap contract work for the more costly and inefficient union labor.
Many hours are spent by managers trying to 1.) escalate the pay scales of their employees so they themselves will qualify for an increase and 2.) attempt to justify more employees for doing the same amount of work. This will also qualify them for higher pay.
Many employees, on taxpayer time, are continually searching the ads for higher paying positions.
Is this all union stuff? No. It is the creeping corruption normally found in government, whether at state level or national level. There is no way of truly determining whether an office is working cost effectively or not. What gets done gets done and what doesn’t get done…….Oh Well.
There are qualified, dedicated silly servants along with an over abundance of unqualified, overpaid silly servants. I found this to be pretty much within government as the contractors and consultants I worked with at the same time did not have this same degree of incompetence within their ranks.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
George Washington
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html#ixzz18ZR5znQo
Report comment to moderator
Corporations are legally mandated to act only in the interests of their shareholders ie maximize profits and not consider greater societal needs. This occasionally results in corporations working against the interests of the community – outsourcing, layoffs, lowering health and safety standards, pollution, etc all in the interest of maximizing profit for their shareholders.
Unions are legally bound in a similar manner – they must act in the best interests of their membership and defend the legal rights of each member. If they do not, they are liable. This occasionally results in unions working against the interests of the community. In both cases, unions and corporations sometimes do things we on the outside rightfully criticize – ie a union member being protected even though he’s packing a gun at work.
Many hours are spent by managers trying to 1.) escalate the pay scales of their employees so they themselves will qualify for an increase and 2.) attempt to justify more employees for doing the same amount of work. This will also qualify them for higher pay.
These are managers. Their contract and pay is not regulated by unions, blame management for making up these silly payment rules – not the unions.
It is the creeping corruption normally found in government, whether at state level or national level.
The same inefficiencies can be found in large private corporations including insurance, finance etc – it’s the nature of bureaucracies private or public.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
“The same inefficiencies can be found in large private corporations including insurance, finance etc”
I do agree, heavily govt regulated industries and govt regulated monopolies will tend to have the same nature of corruption and inefficiency found as in govt bureaucracies. Heavily unionized corporations will also suffer the same dilemma until threatened by foreign competition or competition found in the right-to-work states (auto industry comes to mind along with electronics).
Competition between more freely operating companies has a leveling effect as far as reducing incompetence and inefficiency among employees.
True private enterprise has been shown to be more cost effective. One example I already gave was the lower cost, higher efficiency of private, contract work Vs government employee work. Another example is from the overall salary and wage range of govt employees Vs their private enterprise counterparts as identified in recent studies.
Recent studies show silly servants are earning double over their private enterprise counterparts doing the same type of work. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
Government provided education, a heavily unionized enterprise, costs about 3 times more per student than that of private schools; exceeds $12,000 per year (including capital costs) per government schooled student Vs about $4,000 – $5,000 for a private schooled counterpart. Next to the welfare and old age welfare (SS and medicare) programs education is the next highest burden on the taxpayer; mainly for salaries.
I now do taxes seasonally, and govt employees are bringing in about almost double the income Vs their private enterprise counterparts doing heavy equipment road work. Those working for govt regulated public utilities have the same story.
Government is extremely wasteful and the govt associated unions go right along with the waste and rape of the taxpayer. What Arnold failed to mention along with salaries bankrupting the state is that the state is saddled with excessive government agencies and employees as our national and other state government suffer.
Report comment to moderator
#29 Conan “Correction: Government unions, like any other unions, are supported by membership dues. They do not have access to “bottomless” public funds. For someone with so many strong opinions, you are misinformed on a lot of important things.”
The problem here is that you are refuting things I didn’t say. I was not talking about dues. I was referring to the topic at hand, i.e. union negotiated goliath salaries and gargantuan pensions that are bankrupting state budgets.
I’m guessing the only reason you are supporting such massive waste and corruption is because a Democrat is in the White House and so anything goes. If the tables were turned, you’d be outraged.
Report comment to moderator
Heavily unionized corporations will also suffer the same dilemma until threatened by foreign competition or competition found in the right-to-work states (auto industry comes to mind along with electronics).
The highest paid blue collar workers in North America (GM Oshawa, Ontario) are represented by one of the more radical unions yet the plant remains open and modernized because they are productive and represent lower health insurance costs than right-to-work states. Blue collar union sites like the auto industry are not inefficient nor incompetent rather it’s the bureaucratic nightmare that is the financial and insurance sectors, who btw are not heavily unionized.
Competition between more freely operating companies has a leveling effect as far as reducing incompetence and inefficiency among employees.
I beg to differ see health, insurance and finance industries
True private enterprise has been shown to be more cost effective.
That statement reminds me of people who say a “true” conservative or a “true” socialist wouldn’t do this or when economist claim that actions didn’t reflect their model. That is, when reality doesn’t match their beliefs, reality isn’t “true”.
One example I already gave was the lower cost, higher efficiency of private, contract work Vs government employee work.
Not necessarily, consulting fees are far more expensive than in-house work.
Another example is from the overall salary and wage range of govt employees Vs their private enterprise counterparts as identified in recent studies. Recent studies show silly servants are earning double over their private enterprise counterparts doing the same type of work.
And whats wrong with that? Gov’t employees now form the basis for a middle class while the private employee gets push downward. In gov’t offices the disparity between management and workers’ wages are far lower than in private business. I’m sure you will agree that private corporations pay their top managers far more than the gov’t pays their managers. Probably enough of a difference to cancel out the difference between private and public employees.
Government provided education, a heavily unionized enterprise, costs about 3 times more per student than that of private schools; exceeds $12,000 per year (including capital costs) per government schooled student Vs about $4,000 – $5,000 for a private schooled counterpart.
Private schools pick their students; the public system has to take everyone including those who are far more expensive — mentally delayed, physically handicapped, behavioral problems. And we are open to law suits far more than then private schools that frequently protect themselves in admissions agreements. And yes public school teachers usually get paid more — but given what I work with compared to the local private school I deserve it. However, my principal and superintendent get paid less than the private equivalent.
Report comment to moderator
HRW #31These are managers. Their contract and pay is not regulated by unions, blame management for making up these silly payment rules – not the unions.
Nope. Managers have a union too. And I worked with one city where even the dept. heads are unionized. In these cases the City Councils have to be held responsible.
The responsibility is ultimately with the people who elect a city council that makes deals the city can’t afford. Of course they (council members) serve their terms, fill their pockets, and move on, while the resident taxpayers are stuck with the bill. Eventually residents aspire to election to the council for the purpose of filling their pockets—and those of their friends and family, many of whom are unionized muni workers themselves.
That’s not public service; it’s public looting. And when public looting, by any name, becomes socially acceptable, that’s where government breaks down. Ultimately it’s we the people. That’s why it’s important to elect people of character, and people willing to take a stand against the gov’t unions.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I was referring to the topic at hand, i.e. union negotiated goliath salaries and gargantuan pensions that are bankrupting state budgets.
Oh I see.
Well, as I’ve said earlier, my familiarity is mostly with federal employees, who do not have “goliath” salaries (they are paid, in general, about the same or slightly less than people in the private sector doing similar work) and whose retirements are paid for through their own contributions to the Thrift Savings Program, which is very similar to a 401(k) and is NOT a government-funded pension.
There may be problems at the state and local level (I am skeptical, because most of the articles I see that make that claim are a blatantly dishonest as this one is), but if there are, those are the fault and responsibility of those smaller jurisdictions, not a widespread problem.
I’m guessing the only reason you are supporting such massive waste and corruption is because a Democrat is in the White House and so anything goes. If the tables were turned, you’d be outraged.
Well, you’re wrong.
In the first place, as I said, this is not a problem at the federal level, so the occupant of the White House’s party affiliation is immaterial.
But to your repeated assertion that Democrats defend everything Democrats do, it’s not true. I do not think Democrats are always right and I do not think Republicans are always wrong. I think Democrats are more often right than they are wrong, so on balance I support them, but I hardly think they are infallible.
Report comment to moderator
Oh and further point … if there IS a federal component here, it has spanned many presidents of both parties. For me to have been outraged when it happened under Bush and complacent when it happens under Obama would make me as hypocritical as the Republicans who loved the erosion of civil liberties and concentration of executive power in the wake of 9/11 and started hating it right after Election Day 2008. And I’m not like that.
Report comment to moderator
#34 HRW
Insurance and finance are heavily regulated by govt, they are not truly free enterprise operations. You know very little about how private and parocial schools operate here in the states. You know little about the extent of unionization in govt.
My govt job was selecting, negotiating and working with consultants. We went that route due to cost savings. They did their work more efficiently and at a lower costs.
You stated on a previous post you were a Marxist. I am sure you consider unions to be part and parcel to the proletariat morality of power over management and, along with growth of govt power, that is the path to utopia. Unfortunately, marxists work in two realms, ideological and reality. You speak from the idealist standpoint and have shown ignorance of the subjects at hand regarding who is unionized, what types of corps are truly free enterprise or heavily regulated and about private Vs public schools.
The reality is that unionized govt labor is excessively costly and inefficient for many of the tasks performed. Many states are facing bankruptcy as well as our federal programs due to a combination of socialism and excessive union wages and salaries. Unfortunately, the Constitution has been violated and we are stuck with the backbreaking and increasing costs of socialism and related silly servant costs. Unfortunately, govt jobs can not be farmed out overseas for lower costs such as the majority of our unionized manufacturing jobs had been.
At least in the states here many are waking up to the excesses of govt and are beginning to build a ground swell to reign in the size of govt; both in the extent of the govt intrusion and the outrage at the excessive wages and salaries paid out to silly servants. Luckily, the majority in the states are not Marxists and don’t worship at the alter of govt. Unfortunately, there are those among us who have swallowed the neo-marxism taught in our schools and side with you. The reality is this nation has accelerated towards economic destruction since 2007 due to Marxist ideology. The govt unions are helping to fleece the taxpayer as DC pointed out in quoting Arnold and the other stats provided in the article. You point to the voters, and yes, we do share in the blame for ignorance and how we got here, but that doesn’t justify the actions of govt pols and silly servants to violate the Constitution. It will be interesting to see if we end up starving the beast via our original Christian worldview or overfeeding it to our peril via the Marxism worldview.
Report comment to moderator
An article from Heritage Foundation posted 11/11/10
I would suggest, rather than an ad hominem attack on Heritage, the discussion focus on the veracity of the article.
Federal Workers Need Reality, Not Raises:
Yesterday the USA Today reported that not only has the number of federal workers making more than $150,000 a year doubled since President Barack Obama took office, but that President Obama wants to give federal workers a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise.
The two government union spokespeople in the article both claim that federal workers earn less than their private sector counterparts, but as Heritage Foundation senior labor policy analyst James Sherk has detailed that simply is not true.
Analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2006 through 2009, Sherk found that even after controlling for education and experience, federal employees get paid 22% more per hour on average than private-sector workers. And that does not include the significant non-cash benefits government workers receive. Federal employees not only can enroll in a Thrift Savings Plan that works like a 401(k), but they also get a “defined contribution” plan, which lets a worker with 30 years of experience retire at 56 with full benefits. And don’t forget the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, paid leave, group life insurance and on-site child care. To be sure, many private employers offer similar benefits but not all of these at the same time. All told, while the average private-sector employee gets $9,882 in annual benefits, federal government employees get $32,115 on average. Adding cash and non-cash compensation together, federal employees earn approximately 30 to 40 percent more in total compensation than comparable private-sector workers.
And the gravy train doesn’t end there. How much would near-absolute job security be worth to you? While their private sector counterparts have seen the unemployment rate rise from 4.2% to a high of 10.6%, the percentage of federal employees who lost jobs barely budged, going from 2.0% to 2.9%. And if “serving” in the public sector is such a “sacrifice” then why do federal employees voluntarily leave their jobs at roughly a third the rate that private sector employees do?
If anything the next Congress should be identifying ways to reduce spending on federal worker salaries, not raising them.
Report comment to moderator
Insurance and finance are heavily regulated by govt, they are not truly free enterprise operations. You know very little about how private and parocial schools operate here in the states. You know little about the extent of unionization in govt.
So the basis to your claim is that I’m ignorant? That’s a real effective logical tool.
Private and parochial schools operate somewhat similar in various states and provinces. My central point — they are not compelled to take every student that enter their building and their teachers are indeed paid less – has yet to be contraidicted.
True, insurance and finance are heavily regulated but this is not the reason why they have the same bureaucratic inefficiencies as public administration – it’s the nature of bureaucracies. I could say the same thing about corporate offices at GM. Wal-mart etc
You stated on a previous post you were a Marxist. I am sure you consider unions to be part and parcel to the proletariat morality of power over management and, along with growth of govt power, that is the path to utopia. Unfortunately, marxists work in two realms, ideological and reality. You speak from the idealist standpoint and have shown ignorance of the subjects at hand regarding who is unionized, what types of corps are truly free enterprise or heavily regulated and about private Vs public schools.
I don’t believe in utiopa — I didn’t buy what the church was peddling and I’m certainly not going to turn around and embrace another utopian scheme. I’m a realist – economic history, current living standards, health care outcomes, etc all point to a social democratic political system as the best means to achieving a well functioning society. Again, note your argument is based on the assumption that a) I’m a Marxist and b) I’m ignorant. These are not the best means to achieve agreement or concessions.
The reality is that unionized govt labor is excessively costly and inefficient for many of the tasks performed. Many states are facing bankruptcy as well as our federal programs due to a combination of socialism and excessive union wages and salaries.
Actually they are facing bankruptcy after bailing out reckless private industries. And because of a refusal to tax at the necessary levels to support their spending.
Unfortunately, govt jobs can not be farmed out overseas for lower costs such as the majority of our unionized manufacturing jobs had been.
Oh that makes sense – collect taxes to run a gov’t and then send the money overseas thus removing it from the local economy. At least when you pay local employees, the money is circulated in the local economy – give tax breaks to the rich, chances are the money will be banked offshore and money will be spent in foreign locales.
As I stated before I have no problem paying civil servants they are paid even if you can outsource for cheaper. Outsourcing manufacturing shrunk the middle class – continuing to downsize and outsource will leave America without a middle class. A flourishing middle class is necessary for democracy and stability.
It will be interesting to see if we end up starving the beast via our original Christian worldview or overfeeding it to our peril via the Marxism worldview.
How is starving the beast Christian? and how is the current size of gov’t Marxist? And what point do we drop the ideological banter and create a gov’t which is pragmatic?
Report comment to moderator
Yesterday the USA Today reported that not only has the number of federal workers making more than $150,000 a year doubled since President Barack Obama took office,
Is this unionized workers or is it management salaries rising to compete with over sized managerial pay in the private sector
but that President Obama wants to give federala 1.4% across-the-board pay raise.
That’s roughly the rate of inflation – not outrageous at all. At least, the will spend it in the local economy unlike the millionaire tax breaks. I wonder if the pay raise total cost is equal or more than the total cost of tax cuts to the top 2%.
Analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2006 through 2009, Sherk found that even after controlling for education and experience, federal employees get paid 22% more per hour on average than private-sector workers. And that does not include the significant non-cash benefits government workers receive. Federal employees not only can enroll in a Thrift Savings Plan that works like a 401(k), but they also get a “defined contribution” plan, which lets a worker with 30 years of experience retire at 56 with full benefits. And don’t forget the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, paid leave, group life insurance and on-site child care. To be sure, many private employers offer similar benefits but not all of these at the same time. All told, while the average private-sector employee gets $9,882 in annual benefits, federal government employees get $32,115 on average. Adding cash and non-cash compensation together, federal employees earn approximately 30 to 40 percent more in total compensation than comparable private-sector workers.
Sounds like the private sector needs to unionize and catch up. Perhaps their CEOs can take a cut in pay to help private sector workers catch up to their public counterparts. And the American middle class might resurrect itself. Again, public sector pay can be offset by the lower wages of public sector management especially when you compare the wages of CEOs to the public sector equilivant.
Report comment to moderator
Life has taught me that arguing with confirmed socialists is not productive. If the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century at the hands of socialists, whether they be called international socialists (communists) or national socialists (fascists) does not influence one’s opinion of the evils of socialism and powerful, centralized government, than what will. “Poor” socialists will typically say their enemies are rich people, but the reality is many of the wealthiest people are internationalists (free trade, global economy, etc.), and espouse socialist causes. The bottom line is either one thinks that the fruits of one’s labor belong to the one performing the labor or that the government decides how much one is allowed to keep.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: I would suggest, rather than an ad hominem attack on Heritage, the discussion focus on the veracity of the article.
Sure.
but that President Obama wants to give federala 1.4% across-the-board pay raise.
False. Obama has proposed to freeze the pay of all civilian federal employees (everybody but the military) for two years. Legislation enacting that passed the House. Now the Senate must pass it, and if they do, it will happen.
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101212/BENEFITS01/12120306/
Analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2006 through 2009, Sherk found that even after controlling for education and experience, federal employees get paid 22% more per hour on average than private-sector workers.
The article doesn’t give us any insight into Sherk’s methodology, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself disagrees with him. They found that the average federal employee earns a good bit less than private sector counterparts, and the disparity grows wider each year.
http://fcw.com/articles/2010/11/01/bureau-of-labor-statistics-federal-pay-private-sector.aspx
The president of one federal employee union had this to say about the USA Today article you cite:
http://fcw.com/articles/2010/11/10/union-head-disputes-federal-pay-claims.aspx
And that does not include the significant non-cash benefits government workers receive. Federal employees not only can enroll in a Thrift Savings Plan that works like a 401(k), but they also get a “defined contribution” plan, which lets a worker with 30 years of experience retire at 56 with full benefits.
It’s not clear whether Heritage is objecting to federal employees having a retirement plan. If they are, then I say, pshaw.
However, he is confused on this point. The defined contribution plan IS the Thrift Savings Plan. “Defined contribution” means that the contributions, and not the benefits, are defined. 401(k)s, IRAs and TSP are defined contribution plans. It’s a term meant to differentiate it from a defined benefits plan, such as a pension or Social Security, where the payout is also predefined.
So he is, either through ignorance or deliberate deception, presenting the same plan using two terms as if they were two separate benefits. They’re not — it’s the same thing.
And don’t forget the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, paid leave, group life insurance and on-site child care. To be sure, many private employers offer similar benefits but not all of these at the same time.
The federal government is one employer; how is it fair to compare it to the whole range of private sector companies? If you compare the fed to a company with a generous benefits program, it looks comparable or even inferior. Why is the conservative response to demand that the government downgrade to a lower standard, rather than encourage companies to upgrade to a higher standard?
While their private sector counterparts have seen the unemployment rate rise from 4.2% to a high of 10.6%, the percentage of federal employees who lost jobs barely budged, going from 2.0% to 2.9%. And if “serving” in the public sector is such a “sacrifice” then why do federal employees voluntarily leave their jobs at roughly a third the rate that private sector employees do?
If anything the next Congress should be identifying ways to reduce spending on federal worker salaries, not raising them.
So his basic argument is that we should ensure federal jobs are underpaid and offer bad benefits — why? What sense does that make? Don’t we want smart, talented, capable people carrying out government missions?
I would suggest, rather than an ad hominem attack on Heritage, the discussion focus on the veracity of the article.
And so I have done. The author gets every important claim of fact wrong, and the ends with an appeal to make things worse for federal employees so nobody good will ever want such a job.
It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that is just utterly idiotic.
Report comment to moderator
I posted a message that’s being held for moderation due to having three links in it. Here it is again, sans links, in order to get it posted.
####
RWHawk: I would suggest, rather than an ad hominem attack on Heritage, the discussion focus on the veracity of the article.
Sure.
but that President Obama wants to give federala 1.4% across-the-board pay raise.
False. Obama has proposed to freeze the pay of all civilian federal employees (everybody but the military) for two years. Legislation enacting that passed the House. Now the Senate must pass it, and if they do, it will happen.
Analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2006 through 2009, Sherk found that even after controlling for education and experience, federal employees get paid 22% more per hour on average than private-sector workers.
The article doesn’t give us any insight into Sherk’s methodology, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself disagrees with him. They found that the average federal employee earns a good bit less than private sector counterparts, and the disparity grows wider each year.
The president of one federal employee union had this to say about the USA Today article you cite:
“Among the 82,000 federal employees earning at least $150,000, more than half are doctors, lawyers, scientists, executives leading agencies or major programs, or people with specialized skills, such as nuclear scientists and air traffic controllers,” she wrote. “Of the nearly 30 percent of that group who are doctors, the majority of them work at the Veterans Administration caring for wounded service members. By comparison, the Medical Group Management Association reports that median physician compensation in 2009 ranged from just under $200,000 for primary care physicians to $350,000 for specialty care physicians.”
And that does not include the significant non-cash benefits government workers receive. Federal employees not only can enroll in a Thrift Savings Plan that works like a 401(k), but they also get a “defined contribution” plan, which lets a worker with 30 years of experience retire at 56 with full benefits.
He is confused or lying on this point. The defined contribution plan IS the Thrift Savings Plan.
“Defined contribution” is not a specific retirement plan, it’s a definitional term that means that the contributions, and not the benefits, are defined. 401(k)s, IRAs and TSP are defined contribution plans. It’s a term meant to differentiate it from a defined benefits plan, such as a pension or Social Security, where the payout is also predefined.
So he is, either through ignorance or deliberate deception, presenting the same plan using two terms as if they were two separate benefits. They’re not — it’s the same thing.
And don’t forget the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, paid leave, group life insurance and on-site child care. To be sure, many private employers offer similar benefits but not all of these at the same time.
The federal government is one employer; how is it fair to compare it to the whole range of private sector companies? If you compare the fed to a company with a generous benefits program, it looks comparable or even inferior. Why is the conservative response to demand that the government downgrade to a lower standard, rather than encourage companies to upgrade to a higher standard?
While their private sector counterparts have seen the unemployment rate rise from 4.2% to a high of 10.6%, the percentage of federal employees who lost jobs barely budged, going from 2.0% to 2.9%. And if “serving” in the public sector is such a “sacrifice” then why do federal employees voluntarily leave their jobs at roughly a third the rate that private sector employees do?
If anything the next Congress should be identifying ways to reduce spending on federal worker salaries, not raising them.
So his basic argument is that we should ensure federal jobs are underpaid and offer bad benefits — why? What sense does that make? Don’t we want smart, talented, capable people carrying out government missions?
I would suggest, rather than an ad hominem attack on Heritage, the discussion focus on the veracity of the article.
And so I have done. The author gets every important claim of fact wrong, and the ends with an appeal to make things worse for federal employees so nobody good will ever want such a job.
It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that is just utterly idiotic.
Report comment to moderator
The bottom line is either one thinks that the fruits of one’s labor belong to the one performing the labor
I agree — which is why unions provide a service to labourers in helping the retain the value of their production instead of letting it be appropriated by management.
Of course, the labour theory of property (and income) was devised within a founding myth — similar to any forrm of social contract its not reflective of the reality on the ground as the fruits of labour have always been controlled by those who control the use of force. In the present era, the state has a monopoly on public force in the past it was aristrocrats, chieftains, warlords etc. the idea that one owed his/her own fruits is a useful fiction
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Read Debra’s comment #35 regarding you perceptions of who is unionized.
Govt schools have the option of expelling students who don’t measure up. Using the NEA excuses from you previous post doesn’t explain why govt school costs are almost triple private and parochial school costs. The Catholic schools in NY had their doors open to any student sent their way. At least you do admit that govt educrats earn more than the private school teachers.
Govt bureaucracies do not face competition to contain operation costs as their private industry counterparts.
Can you support the claim that private industry bureacracies are just as inefficient (cost Vs production) as govt bureacracies?
I said I had recalled that you made the statement in a previous post that you were a Marxist. If so, Marxism is based on a utopia. In fact, all worldviews have a utopia.
you said: Actually they are facing bankruptcy after bailing out reckless private industries. And because of a refusal to tax at the necessary levels to support their spending.
What private industries did CA and NJ and NY bailout?
In a true free enterprise world those that are mismanaged die and the healthy ones prosper. Government intervention harms the viability of govt and private industry by keeping inefficient dinosaurs alive on the taxpayers dime.
you ask: How is starving the beast Christian? and how is the current size of gov’t Marxist? And what point do we drop the ideological banter and create a gov’t which is pragmatic?
1. Shrinking govt (starving the beast) to the size that fits into God’s design is, well, very Christian. Keeping the govt at this size and/or letting it grow is very unChristian as it violates too many of God’s laws.
2. It’s not just he size of govt, but the phiolosphy behind the govt initiatives that make it Marxist. It’s a president who is a Marxist and the programs he is asking for and getting.
3. Pragmatism is a humanistic concept found in both Marxism and Secular humanism; therefore, the ideologic banter can’t be dropped as it all boils down to one worldview or another.
you said: I’m a realist – economic history, current living standards, health care outcomes, etc all point to a social democratic political system as the best means to achieving a well functioning society.
I do disagree with you on this conclusion. Govt controlled societies fare worse than the free enterprise society, limited govt we had prior to the 1920s.
Isn’t a social democratic system a modified version of Marxism to include govt controlled capitalism and a more nationalistic tone? Some call it the Third Way now.
Report comment to moderator
Conan
you said: but that President Obama wants to give federala 1.4% across-the-board pay raise. False. Obama has proposed to freeze…
Did you bother to check the dates between when he proposed the pay raise to now the pay freeze? Seems he did learn something from the election.
Something about figures don’t lie, liars figure. Govt unions and OPM appear to be the latter.
“But this does not mean federal employees earn less than they could in the private sector. The reason is that the federal government promotes employees to higher positions than they would hold in the private sector.
For instance, a senior accountant in government might qualify only as a junior accountant in the private sector. This senior accountant would be “underpaid” compared to private sector employees only because he is under-qualified by private sector standards.
A Congressional Budget Office study concluded that the average federal worker resides two-thirds of one pay grade above a similar private sector employee. A more recent academic study found a larger gap of three-quarters of a grade.
Official pay statistics are badly skewed as a result. If federal employees are over-promoted, federal positions can be underpaid, while federal workers remain overpaid.”
In other words, grade creep, which is rampant in the government, accounts for the excessive salaries. Note my comment in #30 post.
Sherk’s study was an apples to apples comparison, not an orange to apples as the union and OPM use. I’d suggest you research Sherk’s actual study and assess his methodology.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Could you please explain to me what CSRS, FERS and TSP are?
Report comment to moderator
CSRS stands for Civil Service Retirement System. It’s the old retirement system that ended in 1987. It was a defined benefit system (pension.) Obviously, people who started working for the government before 1987 remain covered under it, but it’s been in the process of being phased out for 23 years now, so the number of people involved is rapidly dwindling.
FERS is the Federal Employee Retirement System, which is what is in place for most federal employees now. The TSP is the Thrift Savings Program, which is the primary retirement savings program under FERS. It is very similar to a 401(k). It is a defined contribution system, which means the employee and employer contributions to it are defined, but the benefit is variable.
Under CSRS, employees contributed a mandatory amount to the annuity fund, and the government contributed some. CSRS employees did not pay into Social Security, but they did pay into Medicare. And they can also contribute to a TSP account if they want, but they get no employer match if they do.
Under FERS, federal employees have a “basic benefit” which is paid for by deductions from their salary, and they can voluntarily invest in TSP with the government providing some matching contributions. Under FERS, federal employees do contribute to Social Security.
Good enough?
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk
Did you bother to check the dates between when he proposed the pay raise to now the pay freeze? Seems he did learn something from the election.
Of course, he’s turned out to be disappointingly spineless and he proposed it in November. Still, it’s not true to say now that he wants to give them a raise, is it? (Fair enough that the Heritage Foundation article was published a couple of weeks before he announced the freeze proposal, but you left it uncorrected in posting it here.)
I don’t think a 1.4 percent raise is excessive, really, it’s just a cost-of-living adjustment. But he’s been scared into backing off of even that.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Thank you.
It appears that Sherk was not ignorant or lying about the feds retirement programs. I do differ with you about which program is the primary and which is optional. The CSRS or FERS are the primary retirement programs with TSP being the supplement.
So now it is my fault?? “but you left it uncorrected in posting it here” I did give you a date the article was written. The main point of the article was not about Obama’s waffling; it was about the excessive salaries our silly servants are paid compared (apple to apple) to their private industry counterparts. Who is the servant and who is the master?
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: It appears that Sherk was not ignorant or lying about the feds retirement programs. I do differ with you about which program is the primary and which is optional. The CSRS or FERS are the primary retirement programs with TSP being the supplement.
No, he was wrong and you are misunderstanding.
Every federal employee’s retirement is governed by the rules and systems set up by CSRS (for employees hired in 1987 or earlier) or FERS (for everybody else.)
Think of it this way: FERS establishes the rules for the retirement savings in the same way the federal tax code establishes the rules for 401(k) investment accounts.
The TSP (for feds) or the 401(k) (for private sector) is the actual savings fund each employee has.
The author read the words “defined contribution” plan and took it to mean a second plan in addition to TSP; it is not. It is just a description of the kind of program that TSP is. If I said, “I read ‘The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,’ a collection of short stories,” I’m talking about one book, not two. In the same way, if a federal employee says “My retirement is in the TSP, a defined contribution program,” he’s talking about one program, not two.
The “basic benefit” is indeed in addition to the TSP, but it is just a mandatory savings account, with mandatory payroll deductions. It isn’t something the government provides in addition to salary, it’s taken out of salary. (That is, by the way, a mandatory salary deduction that does not exist in the private sector.)
http://www.opm.gov/insure/archive/health/new_employees.asp#retirement
I already acknowledged that I had not properly taken into account the date of the article compared to the date of the pay freeze proposal. Still, the pay freeze (which is very likely to get Senate approval today) is what’s on the table.
Your insulting attitude toward government workers (”silly servants”) is uncalled for.
Report comment to moderator
Govt schools have the option of expelling students who don’t measure up.
Really, what happens to these students? In my jurisdiction, expulsion simply means you are relegated to a special program.
Using the NEA excuses from you previous post doesn’t explain why govt school costs are almost triple private and parochial school costs. The Catholic schools in NY had their doors open to any student sent their way. At least you do admit that govt educrats earn more than the private school teachers.
Almost triple? Depending on sources and location, cost per pupil can range from $6000 to 12,000 per student. For private schools in Mississippi, they need to lower their cost to less than 2000 per student to cost less than a third of public schools.
Comparing the salary of bureaucrats to teachers is comparing apples to oranges. Paying public school teachers serves a purpose – you retain staff and assure stability within a school which most parents demand. Pay lower and teaching is looked upon as a temporary job until you get something better.
Can you support the claim that private industry bureacracies are just as inefficient (cost Vs production) as govt bureacracies?
Other than anecdotal, I think neither one of us can make this claim one way or an other with any absolute certainty. My disdain for private bureaucracies is based on my experiences with auto insurance. In comparison, my experience with the public health bureaucracy in Ontario has been excellent. My neighbor’s experience with Volvo Canada is even worse.
What private industries did CA and NJ and NY bailout?
My reference was to the federal gov’t. Too big to fail is a problem and regulations are needed to prevent the scenario from repeating itself.
1. Shrinking govt (starving the beast) to the size that fits into God’s design is, well, very Christian. Keeping the govt at this size and/or letting it grow is very unChristian as it violates too many of God’s laws.
You’re not answering my question instead you merely restate your original premsise. Tell me why a small limited gov’t is God’s design and how does the current size of gov’t violate God’s law.
2. It’s not just he size of govt, but the phiolosphy behind the govt initiatives that make it Marxist. It’s a president who is a Marxist and the programs he is asking for and getting
You’re just placing labels and making pronouncements here. Why is it Marxist? And for that matter what is a Marxist?
3. Pragmatism is a humanistic concept found in both Marxism and Secular humanism; therefore, the ideologic banter can’t be dropped as it all boils down to one worldview or another.
So practical common sense solutions are forbidden, if they don’t fit into a theoretical straitjacket?
I do disagree with you on this conclusion. Govt controlled societies fare worse than the free enterprise society, limited govt we had prior to the 1920s.
You can’t seriously claim life expectancy, infant mortality rates, living standards, income were all better prior to the 1920s.
Isn’t a social democratic system a modified version of Marxism to include govt coentrolled capitalism and a more nationalistic tone? Some call it the Third Way now.
No, social democracy has been in practice for at least a century. International in attitude and approach, it seeks to harness the market for the benefit of all – hence a more pragmatic approach to the free market. The Third Way is a horrible attempt at rebranding centrist policies and a justification for both the Democrats and Labour’s move to the right.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
He was obviously addressing CSRS and FERS as defined benefits plans but mistakenly called them defined contribution plans. It doesn’t mean he was ignorant nor lying, does it? But I do understand your point about the TSP being a savings plan from their before tax contributions.
Silly Servants is a term I’ve used for many years. I used to be one for awhile. Not intended to be derogatory, but I will behave myself.
With private sector employees getting fired and furloughed and other government agencies furloughing their employees due to the severe downturn and reduced revenue I consider it a tremendous insult to give special favor our servants of the people; especially since they are overpaid to begin with.
You may want to view this to understand the true problems this nation is beginning to have to face:
http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org/media/video-library/The-Day-of-Reckoning-60-Minutes.aspx
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Labels are very important for understanding worldviews, their consequences and areas of that are founded on faulty philosophy. Social democracy and Marxism: “social democracy, political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society.” Britannia Online
This is one site to compare recent govt provided per pupil costs:
http://www.edweek.org/rc/articles/2009/01/21/sow0121.h27.html what this does not include are other costs such as construction which is about 30% of the operation costs from my studies. I’ll stand behind my cost ratio of 2-3:1 govt Vs private.
One excellent comparison between a govt operation and private is education. the private sector does at least as good, and more often better, than the govt schooled counterparts at a much lower cost. The govt sector is overburdened with costly overhead. One extra employee for every credentialed teacher. Kids that are suspended are given over to parents; you can google this.
The Feds violated the Constitution by bailing out their pet corporations. They should have been allowed to fail or recover on their own. The real unfortunate truth is that it was the government which initiated the financial collapse to begin with due to bad legislation in the 90s and ignoring the warning signs.
God’s design for social order for the civil govt; Romans 13:1-7; pretty much limited to military, police and court actions to protect the citizens from evil behavior. Coining money and providing postal service were a couple other duties added on.
you said: So practical common sense solutions are forbidden, if they don’t fit into a theoretical straitjacket?
Pragmatism is a hegelian dialectic process; thesis, antithesis consensus synthesis. It works in certain situations, but generally not in public policy situations. The assumption is that the thesis and antithesis are equally valid and subject to compromise. Where pragmatism fails to work is when the thesis is absolute truth, the antithesis has to be false. As long as one has a worldview where there is no absolute truth then it can work, but that is a faulty worldview and therefore falls short of reality.
Here is the problem with socialism and the faulty dream of equality for all, the system has a very limited life span:
http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org/media/video-library/The-Day-of-Reckoning-60-Minutes.aspx
It would appear this is the same thing happening in Europe (Greece, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Great Britan) with their social democracies. The beast eventually grows too big to be fed any longer.
It’s not the recent bailouts that is causing our nation to go bankrupt. 62% of govt expenditure goes to welfare, SS, medicare and education. Per God’s design which is military and civil protection the total expenditures here is just 20%; would be less if foreign aid were removed from this group,
Report comment to moderator
“Labels are very important for understanding worldviews, their consequences and areas of that are founded on faulty philosophy” should read:
Labels are very important for understanding worldviews, their consequences and areas of interest that are founded on faulty philosophy.
Report comment to moderator
HRW
I just remembered reading an article about social democracy in World; can’t believe it was one and a half years ago
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15310
Interesting that you weren’t aware of the worldview roots of your political and economic philosophy and I know a couple others that comment on this site who refuse to see this. The ending of the article is important as the philosophy is loaded with major faults and can never attain reality:
“If we are going to change our entire economic system and our entire philosophy of government, shouldn’t we at least think this through? This would surely be a good topic for a congressional hearing. If we are going to throw out the traditional American model of a limited government in favor of a social democracy, we should hold a constitutional convention to come up with a different founding document.
Instead, we are embracing social democracy without questioning the Marxist worldview and without even realizing what we are doing.”
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: He was obviously addressing CSRS and FERS as defined benefits plans but mistakenly called them defined contribution plans.
No no no. You’re still not getting it. (Are you really not getting it, or are you pretending?)
CSRS and FERS are not PLANS at all. They are the terms for the overarching SYSTEMS, each of which includes a number of components. The now-defunct CSRS included an annuity and employees still covered by it (those hired before it was ended) can contribute to TSP. FERS includes TSP, Social Security and the Basic Benefit.
TSP, now, IS a defined contribution plan. That is the correct term. It means the contributions are defined but the payout is not, it is up to the retired employee to decide how much to take out.
Where your author went wrong was here:
No. They do NOT “also get” the defined contribution plan. The TSP IS the defined contribution plan.
Please tell me you get it now, because I really do not know any better way to explain it.
Your author tries to claim that one plan is actually two, making it look like the fatcat federal employee has twice as much of a retirement plan as the average private-sector employee.
Whether he is intending to mislead or just mistaken himself, I can’t say. But either way, he’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: Silly Servants is a term I’ve used for many years. I used to be one for awhile.
If you were, then why don’t you understand how the retirement system works?
Or are you just gameplaying to see how exasperated you can make me?
I consider it a tremendous insult to give special favor our servants of the people; especially since they are overpaid to begin with.
What “special favor” do you see in good pay and benefits?
The way I see it, you guys are wanting it both ways. Civil servants, in my experience, are by and large very good at what they do. Of course there are a few bad ones, but that’s true of any group of people.
But the right likes to complain about poor service and conjures up images of overpaid government workers who aren’t very smart or talented, sitting around lazily doing as little as possible.
That’s not even close to what I see in my work (I am not a government employee but I do interact with them in my job on a daily basis), and part of the reason it’s not is because the government pays well enough to attract good people. You want to pay them so little and give them such shabby benefits that the only people who would take government jobs would be the kind of people you guys like to imagine/pretend are already there — self-fulfilling prophecy.
Report comment to moderator
Most of what you say about education is differs depending on jurisdiction. I have no idea of teacher to non-teacher ratio in my board but if you include educational assistants, secretaries, administration, caretaking, etc it may reach the 1 to 1 ratio. I suppose in some parochial schools volunteers could replace some non-teacher roles. Unlike most American schools, Canadian elementary schools have no cafeterias and the high schools tend to be outsourced. (Kids tend to go out anyway) which eliminates some non-teacher personnel.
Suspended kids are indeed given to parents; however, expelled students are given alternate programming.
The real unfortunate truth is that it was the government which initiated the financial collapse to begin with due to bad legislation in the 90s and ignoring the warning signs.
Corporations proclaim the superiority of the market yet refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Citing bad gov’t regulations does not excuse corporate acts.
Gob’s design for social order for the civil govt; Romans 13:1-7; pretty much limited to military, police and court actions to protect the citizens from evil behavior. Coining money and providing postal service were a couple other duties added on.
Read the verses: doesn’t seem to be anything specific – nothing about the mint or postal service. Basically it says pay your taxes and respect the gov’t.
Pragmatism is a hegelian dialectic process; thesis, antithesis consensus synthesis. It works in certain situations, but generally not in public policy situations. The assumption is that the thesis and antithesis are equally valid and subject to compromise. Where pragmatism fails to work is when the thesis is absolute truth, the antithesis has to be false. As long as one has a worldview where there is no absolute truth then it can work, but that is a faulty worldview and therefore falls short of reality.
Hence, if you wear an ideological straitjacket you can’t be pragmatic. I still think there is room for practical day to day solutions without reference to absolute truths.
Here is the problem with socialism and the faulty dream of equality for all, the system has a very limited life span:
The PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) created economic problems through corruption and bad banking practices (ie engaging in US credit swaps). And social democracies they are not.
Meanwhile Germany, the Netherlands and Scandanavia are doing fine (or at least better than the US) and they are social democracies.
It’s not the recent bailouts that is causing our nation to go bankrupt. 62% of govt expenditure goes to welfare, SS, medicare and education. Per God’s design which is military and civil protection the total expenditures here is just 20%; would be less if foreign aid were removed from this group
Social Security should not be included in total expenses nor should social security payroll deductions be counted as income. Social security can pay for itself for at least the next 25 years. Once you remove SS from the expenditure, defense becomes the highest expenditure ahead of Medicare and education. In terms of discretionary spending it’s the highest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
the 60 minute article is fear mongering.
Report comment to moderator
I’m well aware of the ideological roots of my political philsophy and the problem is …….
Its amusing to read people over 12 whocite the encyclopedia
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
FERS replaced CSRS. I agree
FERS can be referred to as either just the annuity portion or also used more accurately as the title for the total 3 part plan. There is:
1. FERS annutiy which is a defined benefits plan also called the basic benefit plan
2. FERS also requires federal servants to participate in SS
3. FERS also consists of a defined contribution plan — TSP which the agency automatically sets up and makes contributions into the account and employee has the option of adding more of his pay into it.
I was under the CSRS. Never bothered with the FERS while on active duty and listening to the civil servants I worked with. Just understood FERS as their basic benefits plan and TSP was talked about as a completely separate subject.
Since they are on my tab I have determined that they are paid excessively when compared (apples to apples) with their private enterprise counterparts; particularly since they have much higher job security and softer working conditions compared to their apple to apple counterparts.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
True, it was not all govt’s fault and I didn’t say it was. We do have a world of corporatism and facsim. But it was govt that initiated the trouble by the CRA and repel of the glass-steagel act. It was govt that ignored the warnings of the troubling dirivatives and could have initiated controlls 15 years ago. It was govt that allowed the Fed to disasterly reduce the lending rate and it was the Feds that directed Fannie and Freddie to do their dirty deeds. It was the banks and investment houses that went along with this whole scam because everybody was making money. The Feds earn the blame for failing to do their fiduciary duty and provide the oversite of the industries they were supposedly regulating.
The bad corporate acts that can be excused were for the banks making loans to dead beats as the law forced them to do that and the Congress direction to Fannie and Freddie to buy the bad debt from the banks.
You’d have to read and understand the verses for right interpretation. It says govt is God’s instrument for punishing evil and condoning good. This is police, military, court and jail actions. This carries over from Romans 12 and is interpreted when reflected through the total Bible. This doesn’t include welfare and socialist retiremnet and health plans.
you said: Social Security should not be included in total expenses nor should social security payroll deductions be counted as income. Social security can pay for itself for at least the next 25 years. Once you remove SS from the expenditure, defense becomes the highest expenditure ahead of Medicare and education.
SS and medicare should be included as it provides a more comprehensive and accurate measurement to assess govt. This includes Fed, State and local taxes and expenditures. The percentages I provided are accurate as this is what the US taxpayer actually pays for and gives a comprehensive picture of what the total beast is doing.
“Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program’s actuary” Washington Times, Aug 5, 2010. I’d say you are using outdated data.
you said: the 60 minute article is fear mongering
Could you provide facts to support your conclusion?
you said: I still think there is room for practical day to day solutions without reference to absolute truths.
That would depend upon what the thesis and antithesis are.
To properly conclude your comment about pragmatism: If you believe God is and he has revealed himself through scripture then you will know absolute truth and therefore can’t be pragmatic to compromise that truth with the falsehoods of other worldviews.
You seem to be implying that social democracies are devoid of govt and corporate corruption……that only other socialistic nations do suffer those ailments. Is that what you mean?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
With a little more contemplation why it is wrong for these servants of ours to be paid excessively and retained for life is the fact that all other entities reduce wages/salaraies or number of employees during economic downturns; but not the Feds. All the fed govt has to do is print more money to maintain excessive govt expenditures…..even additional govt growth. By printing more money they are diluting the value of the dollar which reduces the purchasing power of our income……this is known as a hidden tax, inflating the money. That is dishonest in truth and theft.
What is the basis for your belief that big govt is good, bigger is better and can do no wrong? What justifies the excessive salaries of servants Vs the salaries of those they supposedly serve? Why is this right in your eyes when the govt is running a deficit.
According to the CBO: The United States government will never have another balanced budget again. Yes, you read that correctly. U.S. government finances have now reached a critical “tipping point” and things are going to spin wildly out of control from this time forward.
Why? Spending on entitlement programs and interest on the national debt are now accelerating. Some time around 2020 they will eat up every single dollar of federal revenue that is brought in before a penny is spent on anything else. Of course the solution to all of this would be to radically cut entitlement programs, but no U.S. politician in his or her right mind would do that.
Ain’t socialism grand? That’s the same problem that is grinding Europe down, some faster than others. Socialism combined with militant and angry unions and corrupt humans running govt and big corps in partnership.
PS; it’s been many decades (1957 was the last year) since the US ever ran a true surplus. The claim that Clinton had a year of balanced budget was phony (typical politico magic wand waving) when you consider that they dug into the SS “trust” fund to stay ahead.
http://www.geldpress.com/2008/07/us-budget-reporting-deception/
Report comment to moderator
But it was govt that initiated the trouble by the CRA and repel of the glass-steagel act. It was govt that ignored the warnings of the troubling dirivatives and could have initiated controlls 15 years ago. It was govt that allowed the Fed to disasterly reduce the lending rate and it was the Feds that directed Fannie and Freddie to do their dirty deeds.
And what was the dominating ideology of the those in gov’t at that time — neo-classical economics of the Chicago school. You may blame the gov’t but ironically this is only because the people who advocated minimal gov’t were in charge of the gov’t. This would not have occurred if there was more interventionist mindset in Washington.
SS and medicare should be included as it provides a more comprehensive and accurate measurement to assess govt. This includes Fed, State and local taxes and expenditures. The percentages I provided are accurate as this is what the US taxpayer actually pays for and gives a comprehensive picture of what the total beast is doing.
Medicare should be included since its a straight expense. However, social security is an insurance program and has its own account. This is basic accounting practice. Some economists like to include the two for ideological purposes — it creates greater fear of gov’ts long term fiscal responsibilities.
Most western gov’ts operate their pension and unemployment insurance at arm’s length as both should be self funding. Similar to a private employee pension program shortfalls in funding should be addressed within the program — either as cuts in benefits or increases in premiums.
The 60 minute program is fear mongering since it only addresses the spending side of the ledger, in many cases its an income problem and given the economy and crash in real estate values, it might be a temporary income problem.
An other reason is I’ve heard all this before. Less than 15 years Canada was subjected to the same propaganda — our spending was out of control, the debt would kill us, and we would be reduced to a third world country. Cuts were made yet in a few years when income side of the ledger increase, budget surpluses became the norm. It was an income problem. And as the economy improved through deliberately allowing the Canadian dollar to decline in value making exports cheaper, tax incomes increased and budget cuts were no longer needed.
If you believe God is and he has revealed himself through scripture then you will know absolute truth and therefore can’t be pragmatic to compromise that truth with the falsehoods of other worldviews.
Such ideological straitjackets compromises societies ability to act and may lead to justification of actions that normally would not be acceptable all on the bases of “truth”
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
you said: this is only because the people who advocated minimal gov’t were in charge of the gov’t. This would not have occurred if there was more interventionist mindset in Washington.
No, not really. It was a combination of the socialist mindset for the CRA and directions to Freddie and Fannie as well as the corporatist mindset for repeal of G-S. It was turning a blind eye to the warnings and the destructive Keynsian action of the Fed.
I will suggest that the proper perspective for analyzing this fiasco is how out of whack the policies were to a Christian Worldview Vs the worldviews of the world. The picture becomes much clearer and makes more sense.
In the US our govt has diddled and stolen from the trust fund that for the taxpayers we have to consider SS, Mediscare and all other beastly programs coming out of our pockets as the govt handouts for all three are based on the current flow of revenues, borrowings and new-money printing.
You have failed to explain why actual debt held by the states without the current means to pay the debt is fear mongering. True, it is a matter of liberal, socialist spending in excess of revenues but dealing with that is real regardless of why the revenues were smaller, why the pols kept increasing the size of govt and what possibly may occur in the future; whether improvement or total economic collapse.
you said: Such ideological straitjackets compromises societies ability to act and may lead to justification of actions that normally would not be acceptable all on the bases of “truth”
I disagree with this for several reasons: Society is not compromised by following God’s design for social order; it is afforded a maximum system of freedoms, liberties and prosperity within a moral framework. Society is actually compromised by abusing His design and allowing govt to grow towards a totalitarian beast with the evil practices of Marxist based socialism and debasement of morality.
Any actions based on the evils of Marxism can never, ever be just and can never be founded on truth. Marxism is built upon false assumptions and will always end up a failure.
All worldviews are founded on basic, unyielding assumptions that form the system of philosophies that are identified as doctrines. You disagree with the the Chrisitan doctrines that God has given us so you want to deride that with the term ‘ideological straitjacket’ without realizing that the doctrines of your worldview bind you into an ideological straitjacket by forcing thinking inside your box.
My son is in town for the Christmas celebration and it is time for me to say goodbye until next year. I do pray you have a very Merry Christmas and a safe New Years celebration.
Report comment to moderator
PS;
something worthwhile considering:
both SS and Mediscare are Ponzi schemes. They are pay as you go shemes where the beneficiaries are paid from the current revenues of taxpayers. SS started where 16 taxpayers funded one beneficiary. It is now down to about 3:1 and shortly will be 2:1. Mediscare costs ar worse than SS and SS is already broke.
Perhaps your ideology has a real world solution for how to maintain a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: With a little more contemplation why it is wrong for these servants of ours to be paid excessively and retained for life is the fact that all other entities reduce wages/salaraies or number of employees during economic downturns; but not the Feds.
This is not true. Federal employees are subject to salary freezes, such as has just been enacted. And while layoffs (reductions in force is the technical term the feds use) are relatively rare, they do happen.
One key difference is that private companies are in business to make profits. When they begin to lose money, they cut costs, and one fast way to do that is to lay off employees and/or cut their salaries. The government isn’t trying to make money, it’s trying to provide services, and the services are needed whether the economy is good or bad. There’s not a lot of room to cut the number of employees without cutting the services entirely.
All the fed govt has to do is print more money to maintain excessive govt expenditures…..even additional govt growth. By printing more money they are diluting the value of the dollar which reduces the purchasing power of our income……this is known as a hidden tax, inflating the money. That is dishonest in truth and theft.
“Excessive” is a value judgment. Of course simply printing more bills doesn’t actually increase the amount of money in the economy, and does devalue the currency. That’s why it doesn’t really happen with anything like the ease or frequency you suggest.
What is the basis for your belief that big govt is good, bigger is better and can do no wrong?
Where do you get the idea that I think government can do no wrong? That’s ridiculous, I never said or suggested any such thing.
However, I do not share the suspicion of government or contempt for government workers shown by many of the regulars here. Government is made up of we the people, by representatives we elect, and as such, it tries to act in the best interests of the people. It very often IS wrong, or has good intentions poorly executed … but it is not evil or nefarious.
What justifies the excessive salaries of servants Vs the salaries of those they supposedly serve? Why is this right in your eyes when the govt is running a deficit.
Why do you believe it is the feds who are overpaid/too secure, rather than seeing it instead as the private sector being underpaid/not secure enough?
The federal payroll is no more than a small dent in the deficit. The interest on the federal debt, for which Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible, is far more of a contributor. Why do you try to blame it on the hard working employees, one of which you claim to have been?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!