I have not figured out if I favor public unions or see them as a barrier to economic freedom and balanced budgets yet. Our new Governor put out his budget which seeks to tax the "rich" but doesn't really address the spending aspect of the budget. Why is it that we look at revenue more often then we look at spending when trying to balance the budget?
Also, why are there sacred cows, i.e. Teacher pensions, when dealing with budgets? Unions do serve their purpose but not in closed shops. The unions that hold hostage our government is a closed shop. Many unions were upset that the US Supreme Court allowed Corporate interest to donate money to candidates but didn't bat an eye at the fact the same case legitimized Unions to do the same thing.
That being said, there should not be a public/government union. We need to restructure the public union deals and ban the them from being established. The one aspect of our lives that we cannot control or find an alternative to is our government thus Unions should not be party to that process. Wisconsin Unions, namely the teacher union, is all up in arms about the Governor's attempt to dissolve them. Many in the United States have lost their jobs and/or seen their pensions trimmed but not the public unions. Why are they sacred cows?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm curious, whose fault are the contracts the states are burdened with currently?
ReplyDeleteAre they the fault of the state worker, who asked for and got the employment contract they desired? Or are they the fault of the politicians who agreed to them in order to appease a special interest group?
Personally, I blame the politicians. (both sides) They are weak willed, spineless wimps who bend like a willow in the wind to the demands of whomever they think will earn them votes in the next election. And they spend OUR money doing so.
So don't blame the workers for getting what they asked for. It's no more their fault than it would be yours if you got your boss to give you a 30% raise one year. Blame those who agreed to spend your money frivolously. And hold those politicians feet to the flames.
Truman - I don't think I placing blame here. Playing the blame game will only detract from the debate on how to realistically address the budget problems facing Minnesota, other States and our Federal Government. Look at what is taking place in Wisconsin and Ohio with Unions calling in sick and showing up to protest. Look at the childish response the Democrats in the Wisconsin Legislature was by not performing their civic duty today.
ReplyDeleteWe need to treat the budget like adults and with that means deep and tough cuts to entitlement, military and discretionary spending. The proposed cuts by Obama is mere pittance and does not addresss 80% of our budget. The Republican response as been equally as miserable thus far although I think if Rep. Ryan (WI) bring his entire tax reform to the floor we could see some real, hard budget cuts.
States do not have a revenue problem per se. Let's face it, if we increase the revenue's that only translates to more spending to which history has proven over and over. Both sides are at fault with this too. I don't blame the workers of those Unions for allowing their dues to go to Democrat politicains who in turn worked with Union bosses to negotiate contracts.
My last SSN benefits statement said I'd get 70% of my entitled SSN benefit if I retire when I am 66. Why shouldn't the pensions of these public Unions face the same reduction? The money to pay for SSN and public Union pensions come from the same pot.
"The money to pay for SSN and public Union pensions come from the same pot."
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. Social security is a government trust (call it what you will). However, public employee pensions actually invest into the market. When a state employee is hired they are informed that 5-10% of their pre-tax pay is going to go for their pension. Certain employers also contribute a percentage which sometime fluctuates. The pension plan is then set up to invest into low-risk, low yield investments to pay for your retirement.
Now Viper, let me ask you...You get hired at a private company and they offer you a 401k. Not a bad deal when it comes to retirement. However, the 401k is YOUR choice. Perhaps you are not a fan of where your 401k money is going, or you don't think that you will be with the company long. You can invest money anywhere you want.
Now, lets say you get hired as a municipal employee...You do not have the choice of not donating to your retirement. No opt out, nothing. You don't even see the money to make the choice. But the trade off is that you have a more flexible retirement package. Retire earlier (with less benefits, of course), and get a guaranteed benefit for the rest of your life (medical benefits are NOT part of the deal...thats usually a myth). How much do you get paid...depends on how long you are there but typically its around 65% of your final income....not great.
In a perfect world, the taxpayer is not on the hook for anything. But, when the market crashes like it did, when the number of retirees is as much as it is, and when some of the employees game the system, the system is strained and the taxpayer is asked to pick up the slack.
So are you asking me, a state employee that makes an average salary and donates to a structured pension plan to reduce my benefit? I am not asking for special treatment, but I don't work for someone who has a profit motive. I rarely get raises, NEVER get bonuses, and generally have to sweat everytime the legislature convenes for its budget.
I hope that helps Viper....
Anonymous - Here is what I mean by same pot. SSN come from the General Fund at the Federal level. Now it was not always that way it was in a trust but it is no more. Pension for public employees also come from the General Fund in the form of wage payments. I understand that the funds in the pension are held in a series of sub-accounts outside of government hands. As it was a topic I had to study for the Series 7.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, you as a public employee can still contribute to your retirement outside of your pension. Now, I am assuming you are in a State that employees contribute to their pension much like a private company employee does to their 401k. From what I have read that is not the case in Wisconsin, Ohio, New York or New Jersey. And in the case of New Jersey, public union workers do get their life insurance paid for until death.
If, as you claim, no taxpayer dollars are contributed to the pension for public employees then we'd have a non-issue because your pension would ebb and flow like the 401K. When a 401K tanks, like 2008, the employer does not kick in more money to make it whole. So why should the taxpayer kick in money to make their employees (public union workers) whole?
"I don't think I placing blame here."
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm all for blame. Blame = Accountability and accountability is what has been missing in politics for 50 years.
Besides, I am a bit perplexed by all the right wingers who are pointing at government workers and demonizing them for their pay/benefits packages. These were the same right wingers who said the left was wrong to demonize the banking industry for it's excessive pay and extremely risky endeavors.
It stinks of hypocrisy. (not you mind you, but those who are doing this in the media)
"The proposed cuts by Obama is mere pittance and does not addresss 80% of our budget."
Agreed, but the GOP hasn't been any better. Both sides suck, I've said this for years. Those in the tea party who believed that the GOP would do what they said were sticking their head in their own arse.
This was evidenced when Speaker Boner (spelling intended) tried to defend his unnecessary, unwanted, overpriced jet engine because it means jobs in his district.
Nothing will change this cycle. We won't see tax reform because it's too big. We won't see social security reform because it's a presidential election cycle. We won't see medicare reform because the elderly lobby is too powerful.
And in the end, this country will be screwed by it's own sense of entitlement and unwillingness to sacrifice.
Fixing this budget deficit issue means higher taxes and lower benefits. You can't fix it through ONLY one solution or the other.
But you shouldn't do it on the backs of civil servants. I agree their pensions are a bit too generous and they should convert to 401k plans. But it's the politicians faults for agreeing to those contracts, not the workers.
So we shouldn't penalize them. We should penalize the system and the people running it.
That said, I'm all for changing to the contracts for any new workers who join the government workforce.
Truman - We are not putting it on the backs of civil servants. It is similar to stockholders that do not keep their Board in check. We the taxpayer are the stockholder here and it is time we step up and let our Board know change is coming.
ReplyDeleteCompanies in the private sector ask their employees to contribute more and more each year to their health care benefits and to their pension funds where they exist. So why is it an uproar if we ask public sector workers to do the same? We are not penalizing them for allowing their Union Rep's to make deals with governor's and presidents they back in the election process. Instead we are stating that the budget is in need of overhaul and we all get to share in the pain.
I realize what you are saying, Viper. But I disagree. We have seen middle class incomes stay virtually flat over the last 30 years, and the rise of the "super-rich".
ReplyDeleteMy apologies to the private sector employees that are asked to contribute more and more. They are being swindled by the very politicians who are continually elected to protect business and the business class. Do they provide jobs?
Sure.
They also have become ridiculously weathy because they have been slowing giving away the very benefits that help create middle class wealth. In the early 1980's the percentage of people in labor unions was around 20%. Now it is about 12%. Did the labor unions ask for too much? I think that is a myth...a legend conjured up by big business leaders to make unions look like enemies....worked like a charm.
Now as a public sector employee, I don't want to see my benefits cut, or have to pay more for heathcare. I worked hard for it, I do a good service to the public. You don't think I suffer enough with higher heating bills, gas prices, food prices?
If you want us all to share in the pain, raise taxes....
Anonymous - Raising taxes will not share the pain. Our tax code is broken as we allow for loopholes and tax breaks. If America is serious about sharing the pain then we remove our current tax code and replace it with a flat tax with no deductions for earned income. This way we no longer see people like Warren Buffet who is taxed at 34% Federally paying an effective rate of 14% after all the deductions. Set a flat rate then build a budget at 90% of that.
ReplyDeleteNow this may mean we have to trim entitlement, military, and other areas of the budget to balance things out. We all pay for higher fuel costs and food prices.
States for far to long have allowed the Federal Government dictate to them and taken money with strings attached. Local governments are just as guilty too. But I digress.
A friend of mine on facebook is trying to say that public union workers will see their working conditions suffer in Wisconsin if the bill is passed. I don't see it nor can he display how it will take place either.
When my 401K took a hit in 2008 I could not turn to my employer to make me whole. Why do Union workers feel entitled to ask their employer, in the case of public union workers that is the taxpayer, to make them whole? Or in the case of GM and Chrysler too!
The main difference Viper is that you had a choice to sign up for your 401k. It was spelled out for you excactly the kind of risks you were getting into. You felt it was a good investment for you and your family because the company would match the contributions given.
ReplyDeleteBut nowhere was anything guaranteed to you.
I do not have a choice to sign up for my defined benefit plan. My contributions are set through the state government and they are managed through the plan itself. Because I have to give a contribution, the large amout in the pot is invested in the market in low risk investments. The retirement system I belong to guarantees my defined benefit when I choose to retire. But don't think for one second that I get to live in luxury...If your 401k didn't tank and instead you were vested in a highly profitable company, we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?
The taxpayer is not usually on the hook. NOR is it even remotely fair to blame state employees and their defined benefit program for the budget shortfall.
Wisconsin is a state that lets its employees bargain collectively for their contracts. Now why is this governor demonizing them and creating the old bait and switch to take away their collective bargaining rights? Symbolism.
Total crap...he has the power to make them contribute more to their retirement and heathcare. That didn't seem like a problem to most state employees from what I read. AND he can create furlough days and lay off employees that aren't considered essential.
I had to endure 6 furlough days this last year. Don't think for even ONE second that me or any other state employee is living high on the hog while the rest of the private sector is suffering.
Shame.
Anonymous - I understand that you are dictated to put money into a defined benefit plan. The trouble I have with the public Union aspect of it is to expect that the taxpayer should make up the difference between the pool of money and the outlays. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for this type of mandate.
ReplyDeleteNow, did you read the bill in Wisconsin? The bill does not demonize nor is a bait and switch. It simply removes health and pension benefits from the collective bargaining agreement. Once done then the Governor can require that public union employees contribute to their benefits and what is wrong with that?
The other option is for the Governor to lay off 10,000 to 12,000 of the 300,000 public union employees...which is a worse option?
Actually, Viper....Taxpayers usually are never really on the hook. At no time in my state has the general fund ever been used to make up the difference. In state where the plans get mismanaged, sure. And I certainly won't debate the frustration
ReplyDeleteI did read the bill. The state employess are being asked to contribute around 6% to their pensions and double their contributions to their healthcare. And to contiune the slap in the face....a section of them need to remove their right to collectively bargain....wow
So you are fundamentally OK with this, right? Even though Wisconsins pension program is quite healthy, and taxpayers have never been on the hook.
Anonymous - The union will still be able to collectively bargain on wages. If we really want to clean up the corruption that exists in our government we need to start some place and public unions is a perfect spot. I did have high hopes that Obama was serious about reforming Washington D.C. but he disappointed me by making back office deals on health care and other key pieces of legislation.
ReplyDeleteHere's what seems odd to me Viper.
ReplyDeleteYou argue constantly that your rights are being infringed upon by the healthcare bill, by excessive taxes, by excessive deficit, etc.
Yet when Wisconsin's ultra-right wing governor proposes a bill to strip government employees of their rights - you support it.
Care to explain how that's not hypocrisy on your part? IMO, this is a case of "well, it's not me so it's ok".
It seems like you and many others are demonizing a group of fellow citizens in order to fix a budget problem that was decades in the making.
You won't raise taxes on yourself to help pay for a situation we all helped create, but you're happy to raise taxes on your fellow citizens who happen to work for the state.
And on top of it all, you want them to give up their rights too.
And you don't see anything hypocritic about that when compared with your stances on every other topic?
Truman - We are not seeing a tax hike in Wisconsin on the public union worker. Nor am I being a hypocrite here.
ReplyDeleteTaxpayers are the employer of these public union workers. That being said if the Governor needs to balance the budget via increasing the health care and pension funding from the public union workers then so be it. The trouble is that as the public union employer the taxpayer or the governor is not able to make required changes under the current collective bargaining agreement.
I disagree with the notion that the taxpayer, the employer, should make the public union pension fund whole when the market dives like it did or becomes underfunded. When my pension was underfunded at my previous employer they did not make me whole either. They did take steps to ensure they could get back to proper funding levels.
"We are not seeing a tax hike in Wisconsin on the public union worker."
ReplyDeleteIf I was asked to pay the government 12.5% more of my salary to cover a budget deficit, that sure sounds like more tax. The fact that I'm a government employee and they're calling it something different doesn't mean it's not taxation.
If the governor raises the fee to register your car, do you consider that a tax hike?
"the Governor needs to balance the budget"
And the unions have agreed to all the financial requests the governor has made. So this isn't about balancing the budget, it's about breaking unions.
And I'm not an english professor, but the word hypocrisy typically means saying one thing but supporting/doing another.
You and so many others support citizen rights all the time, but then you are here supporting the big government stance to strip workers of their rights.
I don't know about you, but that sure seems to fit the definition. So when did the GOP start backing big government?
Oh wait, they always have when it suited their agenda.
Nevermind.
Truman - Are you saying the increase in contribution to the public workers pension and health care is a tax? So, is it also a tax when a private employer says the same thing? I do not see it as a tax.
ReplyDeleteYes, if a user fee or any other fee is increased by government would be an end run on tax increases. That is not what is at issue with Wisconsin trying to balance their budget. Pensions are a large unknown for budgets at all levels. Just go ask your local city clerk to find out more.
By stripping out health care and pension benefits from collective bargaining is not increasing government size and scope; rather it gives governors and local governments flexibility in meeting their budget needs. Please explain on how government is growing by making this change to the collective bargaing agreement!
"Are you saying the increase in contribution to the public workers pension and health care is a tax?"
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that by taking 12.5% out of the employee's checks, the state isn't raising it's revenue stream?
These people dont' work for a private employer, they work for the state. They had a negotiated contract with that state which is being altered to balance a budget gap. That requires raising revenues for the state. The tax increase is being targetted on those who benefit from the service. But it's still a tax increase because it increases revenue to the state to offset a budget deficit.
Yes, it's tax.
"By stripping out health care and pension benefits from collective bargaining is not increasing government size and scope"
I didn't say it increased government size/scope. I said you are using "big government" to take away rights that workers have. The state already has the "flexibility" that they need. This is about union busting, not balancing the budget - quit lying to yourself.
Oh, and if you don't believe this is about union busting, read this article. The governor got caught with his pants down.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I find it disturbing that the same people who claim to support rights, liberties and freedoms are the ones supporting stripping these citizens of those rights.
That's hypocrisy and the tea party is at the epicenter. But then, they're nothing but sheep bleating to the beat of the GOP drum anyway - aren't they?
Viper,
ReplyDeleteI'll frame this a bit differently for you.
I know you claim you are a strong supporter of the constitution.
Please cite where in the constitution the state has the right to remove the ability of citizens to collectively bargain? Please cite where in the constitution, government employed citizens are granted less rights than those that work in the private sector?
Where in the constitution does it cite anything that supports what the governor is attempting?
If this is about balancing the budget, and the unions have already agreed to all the financial demands, how is this about flexibility?
If this is about stripping collective bargaining rights from citizens, how is this in any way a bill that the Tea party can stand behind unless they are only for constitutional rights as long as they pertain to healthcare bills, gun rights and presidential birth certificates?
How can you say you're for smaller government and citizens empowerment but then support infringement of a citizens right to collectively bargain for better working conditions?
You may not like the politics of unions, but unions are based upon the fundamental rights of citizens of this nation. Perhaps you need to learn to separate politics from rights.
Lets put it this way Viper...
ReplyDeleteImagine a Democratic governor proposed a plan to close a budget crisis.
-First he jacked up the Earned Income Tax Credit.
-Then he proposed a tax hike on the rich and on corporations to close the deficit.
-Then he packaged it with a stringent campaign finance law, a law to require corporations to obtain permission from shareholders before engaging in any kind of political activism, and other laws designed to crush the political power of corporate America. (Pro-Democratic businesses would be exempted.)
It's budget-related, because, after all, you can't maintain higher taxes on the rich if the rich are able to bend the political system to protect their interests. Oh, and Republicans accepted the tax hikes on the rich but opposed the other provisions, but Democrats refused to negotiate them.
I suspect conservatives would interpret this not as a genuine effort to close the deficit but as an exercise in class warfare and raw politics. They'd be correct.
Now do you at least conjure the understanding of where Truman and I are coming from? Viper, this is pure hypocracy that you of all people would support this Governor. He is doing this for purely political reasons and the Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature have every right to bail on the process until the he decides to negotiate which is what our democracy is all about...
Will of the people? In my opinion the people of Wisconsin were flat out lied to and voted on a person who just wants to make political hay and not actually balance the budget.
Anonymous - Your hyperbole is just that. No one is saying that politics are not driving the decisions because Conservatives seek fiscal responsibility while Liberals seek to increase budgets through increased spending.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the Governor ran on balancing the budget through the changes proposed here in the collective bargaining agreement to which 52% of Wisconsinites agreed while only 46% voted for the Democrat. So tell me how 80,000 union workers are suppose to drum out the voice of 1.2M people that voted for the Governor?
In all your heated rhetoric does the changes being requested not help balance the budget and address the stress these underfunded, due to valuation changes in the sub-accounts, pension plans and the increase in health care costs have on future budgets in the state of Wisconsin? Or are we dealing with people that rather fix the near term and pass on a legacy of debt to the next?
Truman - I understand why you, and others, may not see where what is being done in Wisconsin is Constitutional. The Tenth Amendment has been repeatedly raped and pillaged under the guise of the Commerce Clause or Supremacy Clause.
ReplyDeleteThe Tenth Amendment explicitly states that anything power not listed within the Constitution are reserved to be the Right of the State and/or the people. But I guess I interpret those black and white words since I am not educated enough to be on the Supreme Court.
Another item that is being missed is the Socialist mentality that everyone that is employed by the government - teachers, fireman, police , etc..- must join the Union. If we lived in a true Democracy that people claim is being violated with the bill before the Senate in Wisconsin - what about the rights of the person that does not want to be part of the union? Why can they not be employed by the State without being part of the Union?
ReplyDeleteViper
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if you have seen this. Wonder what spin Truman and the other Anonymous will perform here:
The purpose of private-sector unions is to get workers a larger share of the profits they helped create. But government is a monopoly and earns no profits. All government unions do is redistribute more tax dollars from taxpayers to unions. The left used to understand this. Not only did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt write in 1937: "All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," but as recently as 1959, the AFL-CIO Executive Council stated that "government workers have no right [to collectively bargain] beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen."
I got this from an email sent to me by the Heritage Foundation. I am sure Liberals will attack the source and not the words of the former President.
Wow...where do I start?
ReplyDeleteYou blame me for hyperbole and then finish the paragraph with this statement:
"Conservatives seek fiscal responsibility while Liberals seek to increase budgets through increased spending." Could you be anymore ridiculous? Probably..
Now I don't live in Wisconsin....I don't believe you do either. So telling me that the Governor ran on a platform to "Balance the Budget of Wisconsin by removing collective bargaining rights of public employees" is how he got elected? Really Viper? Nonsense.
"In all your heated rhetoric does the changes being requested not help balance the budget and address the stress these underfunded, due to valuation changes in the sub-accounts, pension plans and the increase in health care costs have on future budgets in the state of Wisconsin?"
No...they do not. And I would hardly call my rhetoric heated. The unions are not to blame for the deficit, and stripping unionized workers of their collective bargaining rights won't in and of itself save any money. The Gov says he needs to strip the unions of their rights to close the gap. But public safety officers' unions, which have members who are more likely to support Republicans and who also tend to have the highest salaries and benefits, are exempted from the new rules. Meanwhile, a series of tax breaks and other goodies that Walker and the Republican legislature passed just after his inauguration dramatically increased the deficit that Walker now says he's trying to close. And Wisconsin has closed a much larger budget gap in the past without scrapping worker organizing rights.
This Gov was elected with HEAVY amounts of money from conservative political backers much like many of the Governors in other states with heavy union representation. Sound familiar to you?
This is about political power, Viper. It has NOTHING to do with closing the budget gap in Wisconsin or anywhere else. Just because you or the other anonymous don't LIKE unions, doesn't make them irrelevant in the process.
I think the employess have given up a lot as it is. Now REALLY close the budget gap.
"In all your heated rhetoric does the changes being requested not help balance the budget"
ReplyDeleteViper, I'm getting frustrated with this comment being made by you constantly because it's proof positive that your argument is intellectually dishonest.
Why? Because the Unions have agreed to EVERY FINANCIAL DEMAND THE GOVERNOR MADE in order to balance the budget.
So how is this about balancing the budget? Please explain to me how, if the governor got all the financial concessions he asked for, is this about balancing the budget? Please illuminate me as to your logic on this?
"The Tenth Amendment has been repeatedly raped and pillaged under the guise of the Commerce Clause or Supremacy Clause."
Viper, please stop putting forward uneducated opinions as if they're facts. This is YOUR OPINION and nothing more. WHY? Because it's not supported by any SCOTUS decisions that I can find.
Anonymous - Here is one ad that Gov. Walker ran is discussing pensions.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scottwalker.org/press-release/2010/10/new-walker-ad-%E2%80%9Clet%E2%80%99s-take-our-government-back%E2%80%9D
Anonymous - I did not say your rhetoric was heated but many others on Left are ratcheting up the rhetoric. When Tea Party members and other Conservatives were chanting Kill the Bill during the health care reform - it was considered heated rhetoric and now that the Left is using the same chant it is not.
ReplyDeleteWe all need to realize that it is not a right to collective bargaining. It is a process to which a group of people work with another group of people to come to common ground. Nothing in the process states one is entitled to something and is unchangeable. Now once the parameters are set then the process continues and allows both sides to bargan with eachother on the topics agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement. These are not items set in stone and can be changed; that change is what Gov. Walker is attempting to take place.
Gov. Walker could take a point from President Obama perhaps and just declare that the collective bargaining agreement is null and void as President Obama is doing by directing the Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA cases.
I don't disagree that part of the changes being made are politically motivated and an attempt to break the public union power. I am not against unions but I agree with FDR that public unions should not exist as it creates a conflict of interest.
Truman - So the decisions made by SCOTUS are infallible? Never has a case been overturned by another case after setting precedent?
ReplyDeleteViper, I am glad you are showing your softer side.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree. The state of Wisconsin gave those unions the right to collectively bargain for working conditions and I believe HE needs to work within that parameter.
Do you notice all of the other Republican governors backing away from reducing collective bargaining rights of unions? Do they need this kind of fight? What good does it REALLY do the state gain from this. It just pisses people off.
The people of Wisconsin didn't elect an autocratic ruler that won't budge until he gets what he wants. He needs to adapt as well. Those workers gave up a lot as it is and are probably understanding that financially they are going to have to give up more. But to take away the rights to bargain? Thats political and the Governor needs to realize that.
And to answer for Truman if he allows: I would like you, Viper, to give me every instance where the SCOTUS has reversed a previous decision-NOT related to slavery or civil rights.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many.
Anonymous - You realize that it is not a "right" rather it was an agreement previous administrations have made to negotiate on the topics in the agreement.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that Wisconsin did not vote in an autocratic ruler they voted in a Conservative that said he would do just this as he had down at the county level.