From Tony Passaro and Cindy Sharretts:
Americans have the freedom to choose their associations, and the activity of those associations.
Employees’ wages and compensation are paid for from economic activity. Private businesses create economic activity. Government only spends the proceeds of that activity, does not itself create wealth, and continually taxes the American people in order to sustain itself…. That is not a criticism. It is an inherent difference.
In the case of Private Sector Unions, the “shareholders” have a voice in all issues regarding costs… With Public Sector Unions, the “Shareholders” (the American Tax Payers) are shut out from the negotiation process and not permitted “to have a seat at the table”…
Decisions to raise wages and or benefits are made with no input from those that must pay the final bill….The American Tax Payers…. All WE get are more increases in our taxes…..
Remember the revolutionary phrase “No Taxation without Representation”? ….Well, who represents the American Tax Payers in Public Sector Union negotiations…??? Answer: NO ONE!!!!
Private businesses must continually innovate, not only in their products and services, but also in the administration of their enterprise. Conditions change regularly, and businesses must adapt to find ways to make the business model work, to pay employees and to continue to make a profit, for re-investment and to benefit the “owners” (stockholders). Businesses cannot remain viable with high levels of entitlement or with worker benefits that destroy the “bottom Line” or BUSINESS PROFITS….
Government is not business. Many hardworking employees are hired by government, which is then obligated, and rightfully so, to compensate them for their work. But government agencies do not create economic activity nor do they innovate, because they inherently do not have economic incentive to compete, turn a profit, or even become more efficient or control costs.
People are mistaken if they believe that government employees should be given a higher level of benefits than employees in the Private Sector…, and it is egregious to justify the strong-arm tactics of Public Sector Unions who demand ever increasing benefits… and get them without offsets in productivity gains….
At times, government has given in far too many times to the demands of the Unions, even against economic logic.
The system of forced Union membership, required dues-paying and the power of Union lobbyists to influence government policies and budgets has brought governments to a place in which they are obligated to pay more than they have the means to pay, all from taxpayer revenue.
The demand to keep that system going is not founded on reality. The consequences of that path affects all of us, whether privately employed, employed by government, or even un-employed.
We all suffer the consequences of indebted governments. Government employees are valued, and have more guarantee of consistent compensation than most Private Sector Americans. There is room for adjustment, and there must be adjustment, if the government is going to be able to balance their books and continue to provide their services.
Cost reduction is taking place and will continue. This must include the reasonable solution of no longer using taxpayer funds to promise additional benefits of employment, well beyond those available to most privately-employed taxpayers.
The word “unsustainable” is not an empty adjective. We use it in describing government budgets, be they federal, state, county, or local, when the numbers do not add up, or in describing a business’s inability to turn to a profit for the enterprise….
Debt means subtraction from funds, not magic replacement. Government cannot sustain the current system of Union demands. There is a limit to “other people’s money,” or collected taxes. We need to be brave enough to look into
government ledgers and uncover the numbers hidden there.
Government employees need the freedom to look honestly at those same numbers, without misleading coercion, to realize that reasonable reform may help them keep their jobs. They must recognize that Union-led refusal to reform may eliminate their jobs, because of systemic government collapse or need for draconian solutions….
Governor Scott Walker has come up with reasonable solutions for enabling Wisconsin and its employees to continue to thrive, but the power hungry Unions have vilified his actions and intent.
The Unions do a disservice to their members by refusing to let reality cause reasonable reform. Most other employed Americans make hard choices, and do not ask government employees to do something which they themselves aren’t already doing, as they do not receive entitlements and fairy-tale benefits packages.
We are pledged to show support for Governor Walker’s type of reasonable reform of runaway government spending . Maryland is deep in debt and facing a crisis similar to Wisconsin ….
Democrats in the Maryland legislature are looking for ways to raise taxes even more. The taxpayers of Maryland, including consumers and all those who do business in our state, are suffering as government takes more and more of our limited funds. Emotionally and economically, many Marylanders are at, past, or near the breaking point. “Unsustainable” is not speculation. It is our present condition.
You seem to forget that the American Taxpayer is represented at these talks. The elected representatives of the taxpayer. Weather they be the county council, or the board of education or the county exectutive. They are all present. Secondly in this state public unions are simply associations who have little recourse compared to other private unions or public unions in other states.
No, the American Taxpayer is definitely not represented at these talks. The only parties present are the union representatives and the people who depend on contributions directed to their campaigns by the union representatives for their jobs. Oh yeah, they’re gonna play hardball, for sure.
Explain to me how this process represents more than one side of the equation, and how collective bargaining in this manner is fair to those who are not represented at the bargaining table (the taxpayers who are not in the union and not elected officials backed by unions – you know, most of America).
Elected officials are not part of the negotiating teams that sit down with union representatives. Your elected officials represent your interests when they set the parameters for their negotiators at the beginning of the process, and again when they give approval for best offer which the union then takes to their membership for ratification. If you don’t like the representation/leadership you are getting from your elected officials then vote them out of office the next time around.
And the elected officials know that the unions will bankroll their opponents with union member funds if they don’t go along with their schemes.
I find it hard to beleive that anyone really thinks this way. If unions were having such success influencing politicians, they would have more than 7% penetration in the private sector and 12% in the public sector.
The fact is that unions are considered a fringe interest groupp that is only out fore their members. If they had mainstream support or any kind of persuasive power over elected officials, things would be radically different…
To John T. O’Malley: It’s not the number of members in the unions, it’s the influence they have over the politicians who can reward them for buying them the office.
From educationnext.org: “If you think it’s far-fetched to suggest that a teachers union could play the role of political kingmaker, think again. The largest political campaign spender in America is not a megacorporation, such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or ExxonMobil. It isn’t an industry association, like the American Bankers Association or the National Association of Realtors. It’s not even a labor federation, like the AFL-CIO. If you combine the campaign spending of all those entities it does not match the amount spent by the National Education Association, the public-sector labor union that represents some 2.3 million K–12 public school teachers and nearly a million education support workers (bus drivers, custodians, food service employees), retirees, and college student members. NEA members alone make up more than half of union members working for local governments, by far the most unionized segment of the U.S. economy.”
Phil,
I don’t see how influential the NEA can be. The teachers aren’t particularly happy with either party right now. They both seem to be involved in an alternating game of “who can bash teachers better.” First it was President Bush with his “No Child Left Behind.” President Obama, if anything, just made things worse with the “Race to the Top.” Not to be outdone, the Tea-Party influenced wing of the Republican party now wants to quash unions altogether.
The real irony of it is that is Republicans followed the advice of Diane Ravitch, they could have likely pulled a BUNCH of the support traditionally given by teachers and their unions to Democrats. There has been a real feeling amongst teachers that we have been abandoned by the Democratic party. If Republicans had shifted policy to support what the teachers have been saying (which, if you’ve followed some of my other posts, actually meshes well with a platform of fiscal conservatism), they wouldn’t NEED to fear the unions. Those unions would be supporting them.
Instead, the Republicans have decided to try and destroy the unions in a time of weakness (and make no mistake–they are making this move now BECAUSE of union weakness, not union strength). All this does is make the Democrats appear to be the lesser of two evils.
I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I’ve voted Democrat in most elections, mainly because I oppose social conservatism and neither party is fiscally conservative (they both want to spend absurd amounts of money–the only area where they differ is where to spend it). If the Republicans came out in support of the teachers, against Race to the Top, and in favor of bringing actual teachers to the reform table (rather than the slew of education “reformers” who have spent little if any time as an actual teacher), I would have voted Republican without hesitation. Republicans are blowing what would have been a huge opportunity to gain votes across the nation.
Phil, I can’t figure out how to post to your subsequent comment, so I hope the placement of this makes sense.
I looked at the website you suggested, and although I didn’t find the actual quote that you posted, I got the general idea from the rest of the site. There are many assertions made that the NEA spends money on politicl campaigns. I didn’t find any actual documented figures, but I might have missed them.
Although politicians respond to money, it was my impression that unions (including the NEA) didn’t have enough to spend. That is why the majority of politicians are beholden to a small number of voters, who actually have plenty of money. This quality is rarely found in public teachers. And if the NEA, or any other union, is trying to play the money game with politicians, they don’t seem to have been very successful.
I know that some people claim that unions have a hypnotic power over politicians, but I haven’t seen it, and I haven’t heard any evidence from anyone that I can go and verify. Most of the reports are either anectodal or opinion. Comparing the money of the NEA and the money of Verizon or IBM is like playing a high school football team against an NFL team.
So the idea that unions’ control over politicians must be stopped seems pretty baseless. That doesn’t mean people won’t beleive it, of course. The same money spent successfully on the politicians is used to fund the PR campaign against unions. Now that is a successful way to but a politician…
According to The Heritage Foundation, through July 2010 unions had spent almost three-times as much money on campaign ads as all corporations combined.
Well according to The Heritage Foundation, through July 2010 unions had spent almost three-times as much money on campaign ads as all corporations combined.
So did the Koch brothers!
Jonathan,
This seems unlikely for three reasons: 1. The Heritage Foundation is heavily funded from sources with opposing views from unions. Therefore its objectivity is suspect. 2. Does it really seem intuitively possible for unions to have more descretionary spending than corporations? 3. Is there any actual documentary evidence that can be independantly verified? If not, it’s probably not a good idea to pass on unproven information.
John T. O’Malley, it is actually quite easy for unions to spend more money than corporations on campaign activity. Up until the Citizens United ruling, corporations were unable to spend money on campaign activities, whereas unions didn’t have that restriction.
Pontificator: I might be naive but this doesnt seem accurate to me. If a private corporation makes profit, then it pays the employees. The employees pay some of their wages to union dues (maybe 2%?). Then the union spends money on administration costs, and then donates money to a campaign (maybe 5% of that?). So if unions spend 5% of 2% of only the union wages, that is far less than the amount available to the corporations to spend.
In addition, unions have to either get approval from their members to spend that money, or the members have to voluntarily donate money via a PAC.
Companies were never restricted by having their empoloyees’ approval to donate. And now that Citizens United has been decided, corporations are able to fund campaigns for their own benefit. It is obvious that corporations’ benefits are not the same as peoples’ benefits. It doesn’t make any sense to me how that could be a good thing.
If you do not like the people in office Vote them out! Are you suggesting that EVERY tax payer sits in and voices their opinion? There would never be a contract. The taxpayers elect people to fufill that role for them. They in turn chose who will sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith. They (the elected people) vote on the deal to accept or rejject it on behalf of the people who they represent.
The morons who would buy into any of this will cause the country even more pain. You need more money, tax the billionaires. They can pay the same rate as I do, not half what I do. Dont think you can save dimes from public employees and balance a budget. This is just another distraction.
Oh, God forbid we tax the rich. Or oil companies. Or the Catholic church. Taxing churches alone would be enough to attack the deficit. But let’s remember to leave guns, God and oil out of the discussion.
Maryland Income Tax rates:
2% > $0
3% > $1K
4% > $2K
4.75% > $3K
5% > $150K
5.25% > $300K
5.5% > $500K
6.25% > $1M
So, which “rich” folks aren’t paying their “fair share” of taxes? It appears MD has a “progessive” (well-suited phrase) rate.
And, funny how you only mentioned taxing the “Catholic church”. No mention of any other denominations or faiths….yeah…you’re not biased at all.
Not biased against the Catholic church at all, actually. Only mentioned them since I was estimating what we could tax them based solely on their real estate holdings. I’m fine with taxing all churches/denominations. Scientologists, too.
I would like to know how the people in WI can protest constantly and still be employed? If I disappeared for that amount of time, I would be fired and go broke.
Are the people protesting hired, non-union hands like the ones in front of Shoprite in Bel Air?
No we should bow down to the Ryan Burbrey et al. Ryan has the answer…more taxpayer money.
I also would like to note that Maryland’s Pension system is fairly solvent due to the fact that pension contributions where increased under a deal worked out with governor Ehrlich.
I found the following directly at the MD State Pension website:
“Maryland compares unfavorably to other states.
– Maryland’s pension funded level of 64% ranks 30th among all states.
– Maryland’s Retiree Health liability is the 13th highest nationally.
– Maryland’s retiree health liability is only 1% funded.”
Obtained from a document titled “RetirementReform.pdf” at:
http://www.sra.state.md.us/News/Default.aspx
I guess you can call me a “glass half-empty” person.
So Ehrlich was lying when he negotiated the pension increases from the public employees?
I’m not accusing anyone of lying. Please don’t put words in my mouth (or in my post).
I was just pointing to a document showing how “fairly solvent” the pension system is in MD.
Here’s another gem from the same document:
“According to the Pew Center on the States, ‘Many experts in
the field, including the U.S. Government Accountability Office,
suggest that a healthy system is one that is at least 80%
funded.’
– Maryland is 64% funded”
I guess you can spin that into being “fairly solvent”.
Sorry just using the words of the Governor who told all the public workers they needed to contribute a higher amount to make the pension system solvent.
I don’t really know much about the solvency of the pension system, but do we have any info about the way its been trending over the last 5-10 years?
If it was ~30% funded 10 years ago and it’s 64% funded now, they you both may be right (ie- it’s not “fairly solvent” by the traditional measures of such a description, but it’s moving in that direction due to the increased contributions implemented by former governor Erlich).
Does anyone have the data for the last 5-10 years?
My point is still valid that when Tony says
“We are pledged to show support for Governor Walker’s type of reasonable reform of runaway government spending . Maryland is deep in debt and facing a crisis similar to Wisconsin ….”
he is “slightly” exagerating as our states pension system is actually fairing very well because we took care of this problem along time ago.
Stating that the pension fund is in fairly good shape because it is funded at 64% instead of 30% is like telling me that I would consider myself lucky to have the clap instead of syphilis! A healthy fund is funded at 100% and the legislature keeps its grubby hands off of it. I’d love to see the funding figures for Social Security.
How about we start a couple more unfunded wars and give wealthy people and businesses even more tax breaks – the faster we approach insolvency the sooner “rich” folk and corporations lose everything! Just sayin’
A HEALTHY DOSE,
I agree we need to redistribute wealth from the rich people, businesses and corporations and give it to those that really need it.
The rich are responsible for our bad economy. They have profited and need to be forced to do the right thing, which is give back their ill-gotten gains.
We are very rich country and if we just used rational formulas of wealth redistribution we would have no poor people, well funded schools and free health care for all. We could also take rich people’s money and create business cooperatives where the workers would get a fair salary and share of the profits eliminating the fat cat profiteering capitalists who again have ruined our country.
We must rise up and take our country and world back!
Celsius
P.S. We need to prosecute Bush and Rummsfeld for war crimes since they are responsible for all the turmoil in the Middle East, Iran and North Africa.
Aren’t we also the MOST GENEROUS country on the face of the earth? Who does the friggin world turn to when disasters strike?….China?…Russia?….nope…they look to the U.S. to lead the charge in righting the wrong. We need to get out of the business of being policeman and piggy-bank to the rest of the world and start to focus on our own….but not by redistributing wealth. If you want that, then move to China or Russia. It appears to be working out great for them.
“if we just used rational formulas of wealth redistribution we would have no poor people, well funded schools and free health care for all”….you forgot to mention unicorns, gumdrops and lollipops for all.
It’s really funny that all the anti-capitalist believers want to USE THE RESULTS OF CAPITALISM to “make things right”…..what will you use once all the “greedy, capitalist money” has been used up and you STILL have people screaming that they didn’t get their “fair share”? Which money tree will you tap next?
PIZZLE
When I visit our delegates and senators in Annapolis they agree with me on how the wealthy have pillaged Maryland.
I assure you our representatives will promote a better way to level the playing so all Marylanders can participate in the economy and fully fund education, help public workers at all levels get better pay and benefits.
The only people that need worry are the blood sucking fat cat parasitic capitalists who got too greedy and caused the recession.
Celsius
P.S. A great big thank you to Governor O’Malley for the stellar job he is doing to take Maryland back from the moneyed-interests.
Wow….I feel sooooo much better that those in charge in Annapolis are going to help level the playing field! I’m sure they’ll be looking out for me all the way and not the special interests that helped to get them elected in the first place! I trust them completely.
Get off your ass, and WORK for your “piece” of the pie. HOW DISGUSTING!
You are an ignoramus that considers someone earning 100k rich, when in reality, that is a high middle class earner that after mortgage, car, and student loans, doesn’t have a whole lot left to play with. You know, the discretionary income that actually DRIVES economic growth.
Instead, you subscribe to the neo-Keynesian, give me my piece of the pie that is stolen from others first. There is no place for that in this county / country, I will not have parasites amongst noble wage earns! No matter how difficult it has been for those wage earns to earn their millions, or how many hours they have spent toiling, you feel you are ENTITLED to your 50% of it!
Absolutely disgusting!
Pizzle
If you are a fat cat you will feel some pain for the greater good.
Celsius
I’m not a fat-cat. Just someone that believes in freedom and liberty. Not looking for a handout, or for big brother to always have his hand on my shoulder and/or in my pocket.
I’m not a millionaire, and likely won’t die one either. But I don’t begrudge those that are, as (for the most part) they’ve earned it.
One thing you are failing to realize is that there will ALWAYS be the “haves” and “have-nots”. I don’t care how much wealth you redistribute. Just substitute the greedy fat-cat capitalists you despise with the “elites” who know better than you because you’re too stupid to understand or to take care of yourself. In both cases, you’re just a pawn in their game. Wake up.
Pizzle
I want my piece of the pie and I’m shut out by corporatists and fact cat millionaires.
Celsius
Yeah, I’m sure you’re just oozing with potential that warrants you getting your “piece of the pie”. If that were true, you’d likely be one of those fat-cat millionaires you so desperately despise. Now that’s irony!….Having the desire to be fat-cat while being shut out by the fat-cats you despise….you’ve smoked one too many blunts.
Clearly, you’re just here to flame. Nice talkin’ with ‘ya.
Pizzle
Fat cats have gamed the system! It’s rigged and the only fair way to level the playing field is to take money from the rich and give it to others who need it more.
Celsius
Why should someone’s hard earned money be redistributed to others??? Where then would the incentive be to work hard and be successful?
Surely you jest. You must be a silly liberal, one of those Bush bashers and an Obama cool-aid drinker.
It is interesting that politicos from the president on down start with the assumption that we will assure tax breaks for billionaires, and then leave the rest of us to argue with each other about how we will then balance the books.
Liberals and conservatives alike might consider that our constant fighting over crumbs is a distraction that allows the real elites (including the millionaire talking heads of the “liberal” media) to get a free pass.
I always thought I understood and agreed with most Randian philosophies but after reading some of the post above I’m not sure anymone.
When Ayn was categorizing the work force as either Moochers.Looters or Producers I never got the sense that she thought it possible for Moochers and Looters to join forces.
From some of the posts it appears to me that many of the beggars are would be thieves and many of you lazy Looters are not above begging. When I hear “level the playing field” and “redistribute the wealth” I know that both groups have given up the idea of their government providing them fishing rods and they are both now only thinking about free fish with no regard for how they were produced.
I, for one, would let both of you go hungry.
I was traveling last week around Seattle and spent the afternoon at their famous Pike Market. The market is a wonderful collection of produce and fish of all kinds. I couldn’t help noticing that the many different types of street musicians had their cups overflowing with coins and paper money while the beggars cups were empty. I dont think that’s a statement about a lack of compassion, more that begging out not be a profession while others find a way to earn an honest dollar.
I don’t want any of someone else’s hard earned money and I don’t want any of mine taken from me.
If you look past your own situation you can already see the end of this from the beginning. Your government can take money, and your government can print money. But your government cannot produce money. As you continue to over burden Business with taxes to redistribute to entitlements, soon it will end with no one producing anything.
Where have you been AJ? I agree with all of your observations and want to add just a small tidbit that I learned from Dr. Walter Williams; If you see a poor homeless person on a grate and want to do something for him or her, and take $200.00 out of your wallet and provide some food and shelter, that is admirable. If you stop the next person passing by and take $200.00 form him, you are a congressman. The difference between a thief and a politician is that the thief takes your money and leaves. A politician takes your money and then stands there boring you to tears telling you all of the good he’ll do for you. In the end they’re both thieves.
I assume, A J, that you would consider yourself a Producer. I consider myself one as well, but that does not mean I am not in a union, or that I don’t intend to collect my pension, after 30 years of committed service.
At the protest in Annapolis last Tuesday I was heckled by those across the street, to “go back to work”. They hoped I would “lose my job soon” and stated I needed to “get myself up at 4:40am everyday and go to work.” Actually, I get up at 5:00am. After graduating with an advanced degree 30 years ago I weighed the benefits of a higher salary in the private sector, with a lower salary but excellent benefits and a pension in the public sector. Now in year 28 of my extremely rewarding profession I am gratified to learn: I CHOSE WISELY.
For those of you who didn’t, I can see why you are unhappy, but quit blaming me for your poor choices. As you Randian Objectivisits might say, “It’s all about personal responsibility.”
Billy Jack,
I too understand reasons for workers to unit and even participate in collective bargaining. It becomes necessary when life altering promises are broken by politicians for their electible gain. Police are a great example. When a city like Aberdeen has drug dealers on every corner, gangs springing out of the fertile soil of section eight housing and temporary WWII housing and residents are afraid to leave their houses after dark we put a police incentive package together with benefits and retirement packages to compete for the best and brightests officers available.
So they come to Aberdeen, clean up the streets, restore public safety, and basically keep their promise they made when they were hired.
Now comes newly elected city officials inheriting great public safety and now unwilling to keep the promises made by those sworn in before them. They under fund the officers pension plan, they take away cars, disturb benefits and generally create an environment where the officers that can leave will leave and the older ones have to stand and fight.
So as long as you have employers that won’t keep promises you will have the need to unite for strength.
Al; while I usually agree with you, I have to comment on this last one. You mention that workers must participate in collective bargaining. The problem is that in today’s environment, the worker does not get to participate but rather is paying dues so that a “union rep” negotiates for them and then lets them vote. The real problem is that the worker cannot even get collective bargaining with the union. They are told what to pay and then fed mead and honey by the guys who are really getting the benefit of the union. Your example of the Aberdeen police is spot on. We had a courageous mayor and council who were willing to bite the bullet and do the right thing for all of the employees. Now the morale of the Aberdeen employees in all departments is at an all time low.
Al and Dave, I agree with your comments, except for one of Dave’s. Union workers (at least some of us) DO get to participate in the process. I know this for a fact because I am a dues paying member of a union that represents state and local government “white collar” employees. As members, we are given the opportunity to have a “say so” at many junctures. We hold quarterly meetings for the members, all local “shops” have stewards to convey information AND concerns “up the ladder”, etc. Obviously, I am an advocate for public sector employee unions, and I’d be happy to elaborate on this issue if you desire the same.
Enough said?
http://foknewschannel.com/scott-walker-that-man-is-an-idiot/