Dec 5, 2013 Political
The public sector union workers thought they had it made. They worked for years and pensions were established so that when they retired they would get a retirement check. There is nothing inherently wrong with that but as with anything government and union, problems have arisen.
During the boom times unions made deals with politicians about how much of YOUR money they should get (notice YOU are not part of the negotiations) and they made some nice deals. In many of these unions the workers pay little (if anything at all) into their retirement and the government contributes a lot to the fund.
This money has been invested in order to grow but when the economy went bad the funds lost lots of money. Couple this with the usual mismanagement associated with unions and government and a problem emerges.
The funds do not have enough in them to meet obligations. As such many governments are trying to reduce benefit payout or are trying to require workers to pay more toward their pensions (Heaven forbid).
The recent ruling in Detroit’s bankruptcy as well as threats in Illinois have many government workers worried. The pension funds are NOT protected from the bankruptcy.
In Illinois strong consideration is being given to reducing benefits to solve the problem.
I can understand why the workers are upset. They worked all those years and their unions negotiated something for them. Now that is being threatened. People plan on living on certain amounts when they retire and when that is taken away or changed it causes problems. While I understand their plight I also know they cared little about the taxpayer when they were supporting (and demanding) the things the unions negotiated for.
I can put it this way. These folks are concerned that they are being shafted of their money.
I as a taxpayer feel the same way because my money pays them and I did not have a seat at the table.
What does make me laugh is how many of these workers and their union reps act as if they are only asking for what the rest of the workers in America get. Really? Many folks in the private sector do not have retirement plans and those that have them do not have ones as generous as those in the public sector.
But, but, public sector workers accept a lower pay for what they do in order to get a better retirement. That is the claim they make:
…For generations, public employees accepted modest wages for the promise of a secure retirement. Bloomberg
The article is focused on teachers and there is a lot of discussion about how they worked hard for years for less money and paid for things out of their pockets and took care of children so I will focus on teachers.
I will not address the lack of quality education and the low performance of children. Just on the claim that they accept less money for a better retirement.
In Illinois, the place the article discusses, the average salary for a teacher starting out is $36,636 and the overall average is $64,509. Information from teacher portal indicates that Illinois has the fourth highest teacher salary in the nation. It is hard to get an hourly wage because teachers are off in the summer and I do not know what the work hours are for them. But, a regular 40 hour a week job would equate to $17.61/hour to start and $31.01/hour as an overall average.
How many private sector jobs start at those rates? Seventy percent of American wage earners are in the lowest three quintiles of workers and the average income for the middle quintile is $34,738 with a lower average for the other two. So the claim that public sector workers accept less in salary to have a better retirement is smoke and mirrors. The teachers have more time off, receive great health benefits, and have a great retirement plan and receive a salary that puts them in the upper fourth quintile. They have it much better than those in the private sector.
Plus, you need an act of Congress to fire them. In the private sector the boss can fire you without all the hassle.
By the way, Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago is in the worst shape pension fund wise and his teachers in that city average $74,839/year (2009).
There are problems all the way around. Too many people on welfare, too much taxpayer money spent on great public sector benefits and not enough folks working. Add the corruption that is always involved and money flow becomes a problem.
These places are having trouble and they are not particularly happy with the Democrats who courted their votes for decades and paid them off because those Dems are suddenly screwing them over.
As for Republicans, Scott Walker turned a deficit into a surplus and union employees were not fired and only took a small hit.
It sucks for these folks but now maybe they know how taxpayers have felt over the years.
After all, it starts out as OUR money…
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 6, 2012 Political
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson of Detroit said that since the residents of Detroit overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the last election he needs to provide a bailout for the city. Detroit could run out of money by the end of the year after decades of Democrat rule and liberal/progressive policies.
Typical of liberalism, the people in charge royally screwed things up and now have their hats in their hands requesting, no demanding, that Obama take money from those of us who do not live in Detroit and pay for their mismanagement. I guess since Obama bailed out the irresponsible auto makers the rest of Detroit thinks they deserve some of the pork as well.
Why is it that all across this nation the cities that are run by Democrats are in ruins? Why is it that they can’t run things and why is it they demand that the rest of us pay for their inability to do their jobs?
I know Detroit has a small tax base as people either don’t have well paying jobs (if at all) or have left but perhaps if those who live there would pay their fair share things would be a little better. You see, Watson has underpaid her property taxes by thousands of dollars for quite some time. She claims she pays her bills and that she paid what they billed her.
There was evidently some damage to her property and she said she thought that reduced her property value. The city lists her property as a vacant lot even though the house she lives in is on it. Does she expect us to believe that she looked at her assessment or property bills and thought they were correct?
Isn’t it more likely that she saw they made an error, knew she could pay it and blame them and likely not have to pay what was actually owed after the fact?
If we accept her claim as true then how is she in any way, shape or form qualified to be a part of the team that runs the city? If she can’t figure out that her bill was wrong and work to get it fixed (the ethical thing to do) then how can she look at bills and expenses for the city and know if they are correct or not?
How many other tax bills are wrong? How many, if correct, would have helped with the financial problems Detroit faces?
Most importantly, why should the rest of us send them money especially when it is obvious that they can’t manage the money they are supposed to collect?
Obama will have a second term and does not need these folks any longer so it is unclear if he will bail them out or not. It would be wrong to send them money which is probably why Obama will try it.
If he does though, I think a case could be made for impropriety. Watson said that the City voted for Obama so he owes them. She said there ought to be a quid pro quo.
If Obama bails them out, no matter the reason, it will look like he did it because they supported him. If Detroit supported Obama with the expectation of something in return and Obama gives them something for that support then it would raise red flags regarding the legality of it.
Of course, Barackey Claus gave out lots of “free” stuff in order to buy votes (ObawmahPhone!) and 51% of the voters thought that was just fine…
Never surrender, never submit.
May 24, 2012 Political
Who Is Waging A War On Women?
The alleged Republican war on women is nothing more than a liberal ploy to take people’s minds off the terrible economy and the failure of Obama. However, the real war on women is being waged by Democrats. The Democrats are screaming for pay equality for women and they love to say Republicans oppose this equity.
Looks like a recent analysis tells a different story. The Obama White House pays women employees 13% less than male employees and a number of Congressional Democrats exceed that percentage in disparity of female to male staffer pay. These champions of the minority/woman/non Republican disadvantaged have huge gender pay gaps (this is not an all inclusive list, just a list of the largest gaps):
- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent
- Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent
- Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent
- Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent
- Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent
- Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent
- Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent
- Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent
- Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent
- Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent
Have fun defending that Democrats. Those in Maryland take note that sleepy Ben Cardin is on the list.
Who is Slinging The BS?
Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, says that the those in the media who buy into the BS about Obama’s spending that is coming from the Republicans are slothful and lazy. He is furthering the myth that is now established by the media that Obama has not spent a lot of money and has been as thrifty as they come. This is based on an analysis done by some liberal that basically tacked all of Obama’s 2009 spending on Bush.
Obama spent the TARP money set in reserve and then pushed for and got passed the trillion dollar Stimulus but all that spending is attributed to Bush under the guise that Obama was forced to follow Bush’s budget his first year in office. This might normally be true (and if so did not Clinton cause the 2001 recession) but there are two problems. Bush’s budget was held up by Democrats and not passed and Obama ignored it and pushed for his own spending.
This is what Democrats do. They create all kinds of problems and then they rewrite history. They are basically asking you who you will believe; them or your “lying” eyes?
Obama has spent us into oblivion and now he and his minions are trying to make people believe that he did no such thing.
What he is really saying is that all this spending is not good for the economy so Bush did it, not the messiah Obama.
Those with brains know better. Those who don’t know better are Obama’s base.
Democrat Rule Equals Destruction And Poverty
When Democrats run things they never work well. This is particularly true when they run cities. look at the major cities run by Democrats and they are in bad economic times, are over budget and have lots of public sector union employees doing nothing more than wasting taxpayer money. New York, Chicago, and Baltimore are prime examples.
Detroit is the most glaring example and the city now has 60% fewer people than it did in 1950. People left because there were no jobs and the taxes were eating them up. The crime only made things worse.
There are a few poor souls who are forced to remain there and many of them will remain there in the dark. The city has a lot of broken street lights that it cannot afford to repair and even if they worked it could not afford to illuminate them. The city is broke and is not paying its electric bill.
The plan is to only illuminate lights in the areas where people are congregated. there is a hope that those who live in the dark areas will move to the lighted ones. Seems appropriate since liberals are always in the dark anyway.
This is one hell of a way to run a city.
I am willing to bet that a conservative could turn this city around even at its advanced stage of decomposition.
It would take some seed money but it could be done. I would partner with some wealthy conservatives and have them invest in the city. I would fix the things that are in disrepair and I would encourage business to relocate there by providing tax breaks that would encourage growth.
I would fire all the public employees and interview for the positions needed and I would establish a strong police and fire department that could not negotiate against the people they serve. Hell, I might make it all private. No matter what, there would be contracts that prevented them from taking advantage of the taxpayers.
Then I would see to it that the businesses hired locals and I would offer incentives for people to move there and take jobs.
I know that the once great city of Detroit could be great again.
But only if it can be delivered form the evil known as liberalism.
I think the folks in Detroit are probably asking “who is John Galt?”
Never surrender, never submit.
Apr 13, 2011 Political
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson of Detroit is saying that the city deserves (get that, deserves) a bailout at least as big as the one GM received. This is, of course, assuming you think GM deserved to be bailed out. Conservatives believe that GM and any other company that could not make it should be left to fail. Some other entity can then come in and take the failure’s place. Watson is a liberal, in a liberal city, that has been run into the ground by liberals and now she wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill.
Why should Detroit get any money from people who do not live there and who do not visit there? Why does Detroit DESERVE bailout money?
Why would we give that city our money just so it could spend it on the failed liberal policies that got it in the mess in the first place?
Detroit deserves better leadership and it deserves people who can run a city without running it into the ground. Watson is a typical liberal. Promise the world to people until a majority of them depend on government (and the producers leave) to exist and then beg for someone to bail them out when the policies fail.
How about Detroit revamp its tax system and entice businesses to move there and invest instead of begging taxpayers from across the nation to foot the bill for policies that guarantee poverty?
And while she is at it perhaps she can tap some of Detroit’s rich alumni** and ask them for the money?
One thing is certain, the taxpayer should not foot the bill for Detroit or any other city (or state) whether they think they deserve it or not.
**Not everyone on this list is rich but quite a few are.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 4, 2010 Political
Jesse Jackson is like all the other climate agitators out there in that he tells each of us we need to be green and save the planet while he drives around in an SUV that is not so green. Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, and all the other morons from the church of climate revival fly in private jets, drive big cars and live in houses that use more electricity than small towns but they make sure to tell us what to do.
Michelle Obama is in that category as well. We all need to drive smaller vehicles and turn our heat down so she can create a carbon footprint the size of China while flying off to Spain for a vacation.
Eat cake you peasants…
Funny thing about Jackson though. He was in Detroit to promote government funded (what else) green jobs when his not so green SUV was stolen and stripped down.
This is hysterical and shows a few things. There is no honor among thieves as certain car thieves stole the SUV of a race baiting thief. Jackson is another hypocrite who drives a huge car but wants taxpayers to live green and fund green jobs. And finally, Detroit is a crime-ridden city that has been driven into the ground by liberals.
This Jackson story is funny and the only thing that would have made it better would have been if Jackson was in the car when it was taken and they stripped him for parts as well…
Never surrender, never submit.