Trying to understand

While I agree with you on the negative impact of lobbyists, my belief in the Freedom of Speech outweighs my feeling on lobbyists. If you want to fix lobbying, term limits will go a long way in limiting their impact among the other benefits.

Honestly, social security and medicare need to be addressed as they are un-sustainable given its current path and represent the biggest expenditure. Before I get lynched for "wanting to take Grandma's SSI", let me qualify by saying that current recipients need to be kept whole. Future recipients, however, either need to pay more in, take less out, take it out later, or some combination.

Defense spending - needs to be seriously examined and prioritized. There are more Admirals in the U.S. Navy than there are ships.

There are several cabinet-level departments that could also use some serious overhaul and cutting. There is no reason that the fed. gov. should have its hands in as many state and local issues as they currently do.

 

My view is that my statement was not rhetoric. It was the simple facts of the situation. If the Governor was really simply concerned just with FUTURE negotiations then why is he giving the police union a pass? The answer is that he is not really worried about balancing future budgets. He wants to destroy the unions that typically support the Democratic ticket. My view is that what you are arguing is simply rhetoric that the Governor is saying in order to try to mask his real motivation.

I am not and have never been a member of any union, nor has any close relative or friend of mine ever been a member of a labor union, at least not as far as I know.

 

If unions traditonally supported Republicans and there was a Democrat in power the result would be the same, hence my claim that you are simply advancing rhetoric. Let's stick to facts that advance the discussion rather than emotions that define positions please.

And your point is?

 

Do we actually believe that the federal deficit (Total Public Debt Outstanding as of February 28, 2011 $14.19 trillion) will EVER be paid-off?

Conversation regarding deficit reduction solutions merely makes for political fodder. Politicians love to crow "The deficit is down!” as though that’s some grand accomplishment. Reducing the deficit only means they've (federal government) added less to the Debt this year than they did last year. Big deal – we're still adding to the Debt. The national debt currently increases around $75 million dollars per HOUR … daily.

Unfortunately, the "$14.19 trillion" number was produced by government accounting, which among other things allows one to disregard Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drug benefit, etc. This is like ignoring rent, food, and utilities in your household budget. The U.S. “real debt” is more than ten times higher. Way back in May 2008, the President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, Richard W. Fisher, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California, states that the U.S. national debt was then (2008) close to $100 trillion.

Re: Storms on the Horizon - Richard Fisher Speeches - News & Events - FRB Dallas

 

The States and the Feds are broke for four reasons:

(1) Taxes are lower than they need be (Wealthy people are taxed at a low rate, or sometimes avoid taxes at all) Why not tax the rich more? Trickle down has not worked.
(2) Spending is not moderated at the Federal, State and Local level. The budget is treated like a game. Programs of significance are cut first, in hopes that they will be restored. Programs are not being reviewed for necessity. There is still much wasteful spending.
(3) Sacrifices are not required of all -only some. Perhaps the President could ask for a nominal reduction/rationing of something to put the country in a mood to make sacrifices. We are at WAR with balancing the budget.
(4) State and Local pay and Benefits are out of whack in many instances. Where I live, not only do City employees make far more than comparable FEDs, but benefits are non-contributory (cost nothing) until recently. FEDs make some contribution to their pensions and medical expenses. (33% of medical and all of 401K with FEDs matching up to 5% of contribution)

My 2 cents (adjusted for inflation)

 

I agree on some of your points, but your claim that the wealthy do not pay enough taxes is absurd. The top 1% wealthiest Americans pay 37% of the total tax bill and the top 10% pay nearly 70% of the total tax bill. The bottom 50% pay only 3% of the total tax bill with 47% of the bottom paying no federal income tax at all. With that distribution, of course trickle-down economics will not work.

 

The relevence of the Republican switching places with Democrats is lost to me? Perhaps your argument is that it is okay to do this because the Democrats would do it if the shoe was on the other foot? If that is the case then I disagree. Your assertion that I'm discussing emotions is unsupported and untrue. Sorry if I'm discussing something that you didn't want to discuss in this thread. However, you don't own this thread and do not get to say what can be discussed or not discussed.

If I recall correctly, you felt a need to explain your association with unions and so I thought perhaps you were interested in that context from others?

 

Since I fail to see your point and you fail to see mine, let's agree to disagree and move on. Have a nice day.

 

I'm an "unenrolled" voter, meaning I have no affiliation with any political party, so I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the past; it all depends on the candidate and the issues to me. As a matter of full disclosure, I'm also a member of a public sector union (although we're prohibited by law from striking).

Having said that, I've never seen such a vicious and pervasive assault on the middle class as I'm seeing right now from both the Republicans (Wisconsin and Ohio) and the Democrats (my home state of Massachusetts). Because the governments (federal and state) are still insisting on spending our money in all the wrong places, it's somehow become fashionable to go after unions, especially public-sector unions, apparently because we're a convenient scapegoat.

WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!!!

My pension system has operated in the black since I started...we're totally self-funded, and don't take any taxpayer money, but there are still howls from the mainstream media and the uninformed sheeple to strip public employees of pensions, simply because the sheeple have been driven into a lather by the media, who continually refer to our "bloated pensions" to grab headlines, even though it costs the taxpayers absolutely nothing.

The last state (MA) budget I reviewed had $50 million in funding for an education incentive for police officers slashed because it was a "budget buster", but that same budget included $222 million for *additional* cash payments for welfare recipients (on top of their existing "benefits") that wasn't even discussed, never mind cut. When you take from those who work, and give it to those who don't work, how long is that type of model sustainable?

We've just about reached the point where the weight of those riding in the wagon is too much for those of us who are pulling the wagon.

<RANT OFF>

 

I agree with most of what you said Bruce. I saw a show yesterday in which a this was being discussed. The conclusion by both the Dem and Republican were that equitable cuts such at the top would help have immediate effects on the deficit:

*NASA - No more paying $30,00.00 for a refrigerator - No more spending on projects that have been terminated because THEY ARE REQUIRED to use the money for the purposes allocated.
* Calls for the reduction of privite military sectors that cost us taxpayers billions!
*Stop giving corporations tax breaks for hiring incentives and then only turn around, take our taxpayer money and outsource to other countries.
*Stop giving gas companies billions of taxpayer dollars in "Research" moeny - they can pay for their own research given their obscene profits.

I can go on and on by I must leave in a few to make a living. So in essence, you are correct Bruce. I like you, am I public sector worker/TAXPAYER. We pay into our of retirements, and we pay into our health benefits. It has been that way since I started.

So what are we looking at in the Wis. and Ohio situation? Attempts to destroy the last bastions of the middle class as we know it. I see backwards thinking. The media has turned the public in a frenzy by advocating "The private sector is suffering - so let's make everyone's wages and rights abysmal to make things fair!" - come on people. Wake up! The unions have already offered reductions and cost saving measures. I agree with Bill, this is not about saving money.

With that, I would like to close by merely saying history repeats itself. I will leave you all with this poem:

Pastor Victor Martin Niemoller -

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Have a good day ! Abner

 

When the economy was booming, the public viewed me as a sucker for doing a dangerous job for the money I made. However, when it tanked, the decent (not extravagant) salary, health care, and pension all of a sudden looked pretty good to a lot of people.

My union accepted a wage freeze two years in a row, and also agreed to go from the city's health care plan (excellent) to the state-run GIC plan (decent but not great), saving millions of dollars, but that hasn't stopped the relentless criticism from the media and the public.

 

I know it's not a perfect analogy but I can't help but thinking about this problem in terms of personal finances. I have income. I have expenses. I might have some money left over and then I can spend it or save it. If my expenses exceed my income then in short order I'm in trouble. Somehow governments think they can just spend and spend. It's like the person who max's out a credit card and then just goes out and gets another credit card. It ends somewhere, doesn't it?

I know that there's going to be (there is) a great debate about "WHAT DO WE DO?" The part that bothers me the most is that there doesn't really seem to be any common acknowledgement that there's any real problem. Shouldn't this be the number one news story on every TV station in the country? (and of course I mean AFTER the soccer scores)

 

Oh, tell me about it. When I left the private sector during the private sector heyday, people thought I was crazy for accepting a government job that gave no bonuses, super gala company parties and trips, expense accounts, etc. I choose stability over the money and supposed prestige. We make choices in life, and I/you made good choices. Are we to be demonized for this?

But onto another subject. I would like post some articles:

The scapegoating of public sector unionism (CBS News)

The scapegoating of public sector unionism - CBS News

Why employee pensions aren't bankrupting states

Why employee pensions aren't bankrupting states | McClatchy

Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin: Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions?

tax.com: Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin: Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions?

Just some food for thought.

For example, here in Cali, they can lay off every single TAXPAYING state worker, and it would only reduce the State budget by 1%. Gee, that makes economic sense. Create more unemployment, while taking taxpayers out of the tax base, just what we need to stimulate the economy. I worked under a 15% paycut under the Terminator for two years, and I am pretty much still at the same level of reduced pay. But I digress, you know what happened is Sacramento, where there are mostly small businesses that depend on state workers business? Hundreds went under. Parts of downtown Sacto looks like a ghost town. Why, because with a 15% pay cut, the state workers could no longer afford to go to lunch at the local deli shop, go out to a nice dinner, go to the drycleaners, family pizza shop, dog groomers, etc. Every action has reaction. I will take my lumps, but don't you dare take away collective bargaining because I know what is behind the real motive. Folks, don't forget that public servants are taxpayers.

Just a few thoughts!

Abner

 

Thanks for posting those articles Abner, good stuff.