Trying to analyze seriously Obama’s budget is a purely intellectual exercise. It gives a kind to legitimacy to his pronoucements when in reality it’s clear he will say whatever he deems necessary to serve his immediate purpose.
A small example: A few weeks ago he was calling for civil discourse in his Tucson speech. I couple of days ago he characterized the modest proposals in Wisconsin Gov. Walker’s attempt to deal with a $3.6 billion debt as an “assault” on the unions. Is that “civil”?
Have fun, but understand that you are trying to import seriousness into something that has no real meaning.
[quote=DavidS]A small example: A few weeks ago he was calling for civil discourse in his Tucson speech. I couple of days ago he characterized the modest proposals in Wisconsin Gov. Walker’s attempt to deal with a $3.6 billion debt as an “assault” on the unions. Is that “civil”?
[/quote]
Well, it is an “assault” on the unions. Aside from losing collective bargaining capability - one of the basic principles of what a union does and what union members have literally been killed over - an “assault” on a union would include forcing them to effectively have to live or die by vote every couple of years via vote. The Wisconsin unions have already taken 16 unpaid furlough days and had no raises. They do understand shared sacrifice.
If the Wisconsin budget deficit is so bad, why did Walker call a special session of the legislature to pass $120 million in unpaid-for corporate tax breaks and health care tax shelters for his corporate and campaign donors? Then maybe he could find other ways of meeting a $3.6 billion deficit without asking thousands of middle class union members to soak that up, and more. Passing more tax breaks - especially ones that have no obvious economic benefit (and we all know “trickle down” doesn’t work) in the midst of a massive deficit is a bad, bad idea.
By the way, how come the police and firefighters unions in Wisconsin are being exempted here by Walker, but all the other unions are being hit in this “assault”? They’re unions, too, right? Makes you wonder, huh?
Poet
You’ve got your facts wrong. The unions would not lose their “collective bargaining capability” under Walker’s plan. Rather, they would be limited to bargaining over wages and any increases would be limited by increases in the CPI. What really bugs the unions is that under the plan their members would actually have to write a check for their membership dues rather than having it automatically deducted from their wages. The unions cannot stand the prospect of their members actually having to make an intelligent economic decision whether to continue as members.In a more general vein, public unions are a bit of an anomaly. In the private sector a union must always recognize that if it bargains too hard it may drive the employer into bankruptcy (ala GM, if not for the bailout), in which case their jobs will be at risk. This natural restraint does not exist in the public sector. The politicians can cave into extravagant union demands knowing that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill, and of course in return the unions take care of the politicians at election time. This symbiotic relationship between the public employee unions and politicians–with the taxpayers as helpless bystanders–has existed for years and is killing many states (Ill., Calif., N.Y., to name a few.). It has got to end and will end in Wisconsin as elsewhere.
[quote=DavidS]You’ve got your facts wrong. The unions would not lose their “collective bargaining capability” under Walker’s plan. Rather, they would be limited to bargaining over wages and any increases would be limited by increases in the CPI. What really bugs the unions is that under the plan their members would actually have to write a check for their membership dues rather than having it automatically deducted from their wages. The unions cannot stand the prospect of their members actually having to make an intelligent economic decision whether to continue as members.
In a more general vein, public unions are a bit of an anomaly. In the private sector a union must always recognize that if it bargains too hard it may drive the employer into bankruptcy (ala GM, if not for the bailout), in which case their jobs will be at risk. This natural restraint does not exist in the public sector. The politicians can cave into extravagant union demands knowing that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill, and of course in return the unions take care of the politicians at election time. This symbiotic relationship between the public employee unions and politicians–with the taxpayers as helpless bystanders–has existed for years and is killing many states (Ill., Calif., N.Y., to name a few.). It has got to end and will end in Wisconsin as elsewhere.
[/quote]
+1
Thanks for saving me the typing time.
[quote=DavidS]You’ve got your facts wrong. The unions would not lose their “collective bargaining capability” under Walker’s plan. Rather, they would be limited to bargaining over wages and any increases would be limited by increases in the CPI. What really bugs the unions is that under the plan their members would actually have to write a check for their membership dues rather than having it automatically deducted from their wages. The unions cannot stand the prospect of their members actually having to make an intelligent economic decision whether to continue as members.
In a more general vein, public unions are a bit of an anomaly. In the private sector a union must always recognize that if it bargains too hard it may drive the employer into bankruptcy (ala GM, if not for the bailout), in which case their jobs will be at risk. This natural restraint does not exist in the public sector. The politicians can cave into extravagant union demands knowing that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill, and of course in return the unions take care of the politicians at election time. This symbiotic relationship between the public employee unions and politicians–with the taxpayers as helpless bystanders–has existed for years and is killing many states (Ill., Calif., N.Y., to name a few.). It has got to end and will end in Wisconsin as elsewhere.
[/quote]
The Roman soldiers and any frontline commander throughout time knows, discipline in the ranks is important. Enforcing it is very important. So of course those dues have to be collected en masse. If even dozen few cut and run, then the rest will cut and run - and they will all be doomed. However, if discipline is maintained - and honestly, every soldier will tell you that it’s needed - then the chances of overall success are great. What’s what the collected union dues are about. Divide and conquer: that’s Governor Walker’s plan is about. It’s not a new idea: it’s been pushed forward for over a century as a tactic to break up unions.
I think public unions have felt the pressure and have responded in kind - because they know they can face public anger and they know they want to keep their jobs. Therefore, even before Governor Scott Walker took office, they have:
experienced furlough days - amounting to a back door pay cut of 3%
have not received pay increases in the past few years
have had a hiring freeze so remaining workers are picking up the slack
overtime or reductions
experienced layoffs
Sounds like they’re suffering and sharing in what the private sector is suffering, too, doesn’t it? Their pay or benefits may on average be greater, but then again, they tend as a group to be more educated as well - the state doesn’t hire burger flippers or retail store clerks. Again, as I mentioned before, economists found the average public sector pension was $22,000 per year - or about $1,800 per month - and many state employees aren’t in the Social Security system. These are truly middle class Americans.
Sure, the unions won’t lose ALL collective bargaining ability. But they would lose significant aspects of it. When you apply for a job and you have some clout - as we all hope we do, by having the power to negotiate rather than simply accept or refuse - do you try to negotiate for a better deal? Of course! Would you limit yourself ONLY to the salary number? Of course not. We all know benefits are just as important - especially with family to support. And who here on PeakProsperity.com trusts the CPI? Would you limit your negotiations to the CPI? Not if you could negotiate.
Governor Walker knows what he’s doing. That’s why he’s targeting the specific unions he is targeting. He’s wisely decided to keep the police and firefighters (popular amongst his conservative supporters) out of his attack right now - but do you think next year he won’t ride the wave of anger that other union members have when they see that they have much less and a couple of unions have much more? Divide and conquer. Misery loves company.
Finally, if Walker felt such a strong mandate to cut the deficit, would he create a $120 million one in tax break/shelter kickbacks created in a special legislative session convened for just that purpose? Kinda two-faced of him to do that while saying “We’re broke and can’t negotiate,” I think. Gotta pay the corporate masters and wealthy donors somehow…
Poet
Re monies “borrowed” over the years from the SS trust fund: do we know how much and when it started? Is there a concise summary somewhere that someone could link to?
thanks
[quote=Social Security Administration]
By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are “special issues” of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.[/quote]
So the fund’s are “special” treasury notes: loans to the Federal government. So the answer is all of it and when SS was started.
[quote=Frankshay]Re monies “borrowed” over the years from the SS trust fund: do we know how much and when it started? Is there a concise summary somewhere that someone could link to?
[/quote]
Frankshay
I think this started under President Johnson to fund the Vietnam war. Rhare is right, they spent the whole trust fund, which I recently read was enough, along with new contributions, to keep benefits fully funded for 26 more years.
Travlin
[quote=Travlin]I think this started under President Johnson to fund the Vietnam war. Rhare is right, they spent the whole trust fund, which I recently read was enough, along with new contributions, to keep benefits fully funded for 26 more years.
Travlin
[/quote]
The investment in special-issue U.S. Treasury bonds (that cannot be sold) began at the inception of the Social Security program. So we’re talking Depression-era.
Under President Johnson, the Social Security inflows and outlays was brought in under a “unified” budget so it wouldn’t look like the government was deficit spending - for both the War in Vietnam and for the War on Poverty - even though it was. Of course, now even that facade is gone and our country just out-right spends. It really hit the inflection point on the exponential chart around the time of Reagan.
Poet
[quote=Travlin]they spent the whole trust fund,[/quote]I don’t think wording it as they spent the whole trust fund is near strong enough to get across what a fraud SS has always been. In order to have spent something that you saved, you had to save it first. This was never the case and was never meant to be the case.
If someone gives me money and I say “I’ll save it for you”, then I immediately replace it with an IOU and spend it, how can I ever have claimed I was saving it? Does holding IOU’s from myself really equate to saving? By simply requiring that “treasury bonds” be bought (special or not), it’s saying the money will be spent right away, but we’ll tax people enough in the future to cover it. It’s a complete fraud from the start. The only way it would not have been a fraud as I think was pointed out in another thread is for the bonds to be from another sovereign entity. Of course, since all money is fiat, that wouldn’t have worked either!
Welcome to the “red” pill frankshay! Quite shocking isn’t it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arcJksDgCOU
The combined SS trust funds (Old Age and Survivor Insurance (OASDI)) and (Disability Insurance (DI)) funds are owed about $2.6 trillion by the gov’t. Turns out there are about 200 Federal trust funds, including most prominently the SS funds, Medicare A, civil service retirement and military retirement. Most are running surpluses, meaning their dedicated funding sources plus interest on the debt (debited from gov’t) exceed the amounts paid out to payees. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixD.shtml#1098531
This information was apparently accumulated in late 2009, as it includes actual 2009 data (fiscal year ended 9/30/09). It contains projections of OASDI surpluses through 2020, which, as we know, went negative last calendar year. And, the DI and Medicare A trust funds have been runnig deficits right along, the Medicare A fund most decidedly so. So, even the CBO was flummoxed by the rapidity with which the Fed. gov’t debt is growing. We blew through the projected gross Federal debt for FY '10 and probably already have crushed the projected FY '11 debt. (We’re No. 1, We’re No. 1!!!)
But, I don’t think its quite fair to characterize the whole thing as a scam. Throughout most of my life, government securities have been thought of and have actually performed as very conservative safe investments. I would measure the point at which the doors came off as somewhere between Nixon taking us off the gold standard and Reagan pursuing profligate spending and tax cutting. And, of course, every president since Reagan has followed the Gipper’s sterling example and run the Federal budget into a really deep ditch. Now we are paying the dues.
Of course, none of this takes into account the banking industry’s exemplary behavior during this same period encouraging consumers to run up mountains of debt pursuing the American Dream. It’s a fine fix we’ve gotten ourselves into, Ollie.
Again, this needs to be heard. Nobody has refuted this because David’s facts are absolutely correct.[quote=DavidS]
You’ve got your facts wrong. The unions would not lose their “collective bargaining capability” under Walker’s plan. Rather, they would be limited to bargaining over wages and any increases would be limited by increases in the CPI. What really bugs the unions is that under the plan their members would actually have to write a check for their membership dues rather than having it automatically deducted from their wages. The unions cannot stand the prospect of their members actually having to make an intelligent economic decision whether to continue as members.
In a more general vein, public unions are a bit of an anomaly. In the private sector a union must always recognize that if it bargains too hard it may drive the employer into bankruptcy (ala GM, if not for the bailout), in which case their jobs will be at risk. This natural restraint does not exist in the public sector. The politicians can cave into extravagant union demands knowing that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill, and of course in return the unions take care of the politicians at election time. This symbiotic relationship between the public employee unions and politicians–with the taxpayers as helpless bystanders–has existed for years and is killing many states (Ill., Calif., N.Y., to name a few.). It has got to end and will end in Wisconsin as elsewhere.
[/quote]
I wish this forum would update to VBulletin because it’s such a pain to quote and respond to multiple posts…Poet, from what I’ve read, your main point that you’ve made in both those links is that you think Governor Walker is trying to “Divide and Conquer” in an attempt to crush the Unions and that the Public Unions are also hurting and have made concessions.
What David mentioned is that the Unions would not lose their collective bargaining rights under Scott Walker’s plan and instead be limited to bargaining over wages. That’s hardly divide and conquer. He also talked about how a private sector Union is limited to the profitability of the company while a public sector Union has no limits since the Government is not allowed to go bankrupt. Nobody disproved either of these important points. You mentioned that the Unions have made concessions of all kinds but thats like saying a parasite has decided to feed off slightly less of your blood once it noticed you were dying.
Besides what David mentioned, some other important issues to keep in mind are:
It’s horrible to FORCE people to join the Unions if they want a Gov job in Wisconsin, there is no choice. What’s the big deal about giving workers a CHOICE to join or not?
Wisconsin State Workers already receive the best/second to best benefits packages in the US while paying about 1/3rd to receive those benefits compared to what private sector employees pay. That’s a big deal considering it’s the private sector which pays thier salaries. Which brings me to…
You said “union members do pay taxes on the income they earn - even the part of their income that is spent on paying union dues. thus blowing away the idea that it’s “the people’s taxes” that pay those dues”. Government salaries are paid ONLY by tax revenue from the private sector. Taxes taken from Gov workers isn’t new money, thier entire salaries, including those Union dues, are paid using private sector money. Thus we ARE paying for thier union dues. Example: Think of private sector money like an allowance from your parents when you were a kid. It’s the only money you have coming in. You can pretend to “pay” yourself from whatever you have in your pocket and put it in the other pocket but you have not increased allowance/tax revenue whatsoever.
People here are confusing Public Unions with Private Sector Unions. Gov Walker is not touching Private Sector Union issues.
As a Wisconsin Union worker himself pointed out: “Under our former Democratic Governor, we had to take a 3% paycut the last two years in the form of mandatory furloughs. Walker intends to stop that, so we could regain that money, couple that with union dues we get back for quitting the union and it’s nearly a wash on the slight increase in pension and health care costs. That proves this is not about those changes, but about a political agenda by the left and the unions being threatened.”
OK my thumbs hurt from using this tiny Iphone screen…LOL Seriously, how do people use these devices all day??
About half of US states have enacted collective bargaining laws providing comprehensive coverage for all state workers. About 1/4 US states have laws supporting only local or education workers only. Other states, like Texas, support bargaining rights for firefighters only. Wisconsin was the first to pass a comprehensive collective bargaining law in the late 1950s.
When you compare wages between state and private employees by education level public employees make about 10% less. When you compare by profession, state employees make about 25% less. It’s true that state employees have better health and pension plan benefits, but this is true in both union and non-union states. It is not true, statistically, that unions have leveraged more money and benefits out of the states. And in the past, unions have made concessions in times of economic stress, so the only difference is the bargaining table.
I also do not think it fair for Wisconsin to target teachers and not firefighters and police.
R, let me start out by completely agreeing with you about not equally targeting everyone. If this truly is the case, that is unfair. I couldn’t find any information confirming this though. Where did you hear they are not taregting Police or Fire Fighter Unions?As far as the link from NPR you posted below, I’d sorry to be confrontational, but it’s complete bunk. Whenever I hear anything from NPR I immediately check the facts and look up the information for myself because they are notorious for spinning things to the liberal side and this Professor Richard Hurd is about as liberal as they come. As usual, he didn’t compare apples to apples and NPR was more than willing to print something that says Public Union workers earn less… The truth is they earn much, MUCH more.
Professor Hurd inconvienently left out the following:
-Defined Benefit plans (and the extra low percentage they pay into it.)
-Medical Insurance both current and during retirement… (as well as the % of what they are required to co-pay)
-Sick days, Private Days, Vacation time
-Pensions (and the extremely miniscule less than 1% they pay into it)
-In the teachers case, salary per hours worked (since they only work 180 days out of the year)
Doing some simple math with a calculator, this puts Wisonsin teachers salaries total pay about 50% (give or take about 5%) above the average private worker!! Yikes!! I could probably dig a little deeper because I know they are receiving a whole bunch more benefits I didn’t take into account like job security, tenure, and all sorts of goodies that us normal folks don’t get.
The video link above explains things pretty well. This corrupt fleecing of the taxpayers cannot continue. Great link! =)