|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 7, 2010 20:40:57 GMT -6
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104124088312524.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews#printModeMarch 5, 2010, 12:30 PM ET Cities Cut Education Jobs Amid Budget Pressures The education sector has been a rare bright spot in the labor market, but as cities face mounting budget pressures the pain spread to their school systems last month, the government’s payroll tally showed Friday. Teachers employed by local governments are feeling the jobs pinch. (AFP/Getty Images) The education sector as a whole added a net 11,000 jobs in February, but local governments shed 24,100 positions from public education. The only industry that cut more jobs was construction, which has been hard-hit throughout the recession and may have been influenced by severe winter weather that idled workers. In contrast, public education payrolls aren’t as likely to be influenced by winter weather since teachers and principals are paid whether or not school is in session for the day. It’s the third monthly drop in local government education payrolls and further cuts are most likely ahead. Cities are expected to see budget deficits between $12 billion and $19 billion next year. Cutbacks are already in process in many school districts nationwide. The Los Angeles school district has begun the process of laying off 4,700 employees, including counselors, teachers and administrators. The Scottsdale, Ariz. education association is bracing for cuts that likely include firing teachers and in Monticello, N.Y. administrators are considering closing an elementary school to save between $1.2 million and $1.8 million. State budgets are in a similarly painful budgetary situation with $103 billion in deficits expected across 42 states in 2011. Last month state employment held up fairly well, though. State governments added 6,000 jobs overall. State education added 7,000 jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 7, 2010 23:31:18 GMT -6
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104124088312524.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews#printModeMarch 5, 2010, 12:30 PM ET Cities Cut Education Jobs Amid Budget Pressures The education sector has been a rare bright spot in the labor market, but as cities face mounting budget pressures the pain spread to their school systems last month, the government’s payroll tally showed Friday. Teachers employed by local governments are feeling the jobs pinch. (AFP/Getty Images) The education sector as a whole added a net 11,000 jobs in February, but local governments shed 24,100 positions from public education. The only industry that cut more jobs was construction, which has been hard-hit throughout the recession and may have been influenced by severe winter weather that idled workers. In contrast, public education payrolls aren’t as likely to be influenced by winter weather since teachers and principals are paid whether or not school is in session for the day. It’s the third monthly drop in local government education payrolls and further cuts are most likely ahead. Cities are expected to see budget deficits between $12 billion and $19 billion next year. Cutbacks are already in process in many school districts nationwide. The Los Angeles school district has begun the process of laying off 4,700 employees, including counselors, teachers and administrators. The Scottsdale, Ariz. education association is bracing for cuts that likely include firing teachers and in Monticello, N.Y. administrators are considering closing an elementary school to save between $1.2 million and $1.8 million. State budgets are in a similarly painful budgetary situation with $103 billion in deficits expected across 42 states in 2011. Last month state employment held up fairly well, though. State governments added 6,000 jobs overall. State education added 7,000 jobs. welcome to the real world.... the one that has seen off shoring of as much as 15-20% of the white collar workforce in many industries and likely it will only be the start now. What % of H&R Block income taxes are done via internet in India ? How many erays are read via the internet in our hospitals from Bangalore ? How many of us have not seen a raise in 5 years - yet have seen hours worked soar to 50-60 and more per week - while all salaried so the only incentoive is to try and keep your job ? Most people have seen 25% increases each year in what we contribute towards benefits- while the coverage of said benefits reduces each year ? Pensions ?- sorry those disappeared 10+ years ago for most of the private sector. So as we move forward and more financial people offer up ; education on line ( from where ? ) / programs where gifted students move thru high school in 2-3 years max requiring less teachers / 4 day school weeks /etc.. the world will change, as as it did for most of us, change quickly. no one said it's a better world, but it's coming non the less. |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 8, 2010 8:58:34 GMT -6
I was reading the comment section of today's Trib article regarding pensions and someone brought up an angle I hadn't thought of.
Defenders of the pensions argue that they are constitutionally guaranteed and untouchable. However, can't the state levy a special tax on pensions, say 60%? (I am not aware of any constitutional language prohibiting special tax treatment.) Just set the rate to whatever would achieve the desired savings goal. We have heard proposals about special taxes on bankers' bonuses...this would seem to be the same type of thing. It would at least seem to be a weapon that the state could use to force the unions to agree to some compromises such as a two-tier system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2010 9:01:30 GMT -6
If they Tax them at 80%, they'll still pull more $$ from it than Social Security....
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 8, 2010 9:04:14 GMT -6
I was reading the comment section of today's Trib article regarding pensions and someone brought up an angle I hadn't thought of. Defenders of the pensions argue that they are constitutionally guaranteed and untouchable. However, can't the state levy a special tax on pensions, say 60%? (I am not aware of any constitutional language prohibiting special tax treatment.) Just set the rate to whatever would achieve the desired savings goal. We have heard proposals about special taxes on bankers' bonuses...this would seem to be the same type of thing. It would at least seem to be a weapon that the state could use to force the unions to agree to some compromises such as a two-tier system. I know there are different verbages re: pensions, but as one of about 300,000 in my company who saw their pension go away because technically you don't contribute to it, the company does ( and for us nothing written or verbal mattered)- and although some lower courts sided with plaintiffs, the higher courts told us - sorry but you're screwed - I can tell you there is no constitutional guarantee |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 8, 2010 13:19:36 GMT -6
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htmFederal pay has become a hot political issue in recent months because of concerns over the federal budget deficit and recession-battered wages in the private sector. PAYCHECK
The typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation. Median annual salary:
Federal Private Difference
$66,591 $55,500 $11,091
Sources: Bureau of Labor statistics, USA TODAY analysis----------------------------------------------------------- Federal pay ahead of private industry
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.
Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
CHART: Federal salaries compared to private-sector These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Federal pay has become a hot political issue in recent months because of concerns over the federal budget deficit and recession-battered wages in the private sector. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., made federal pay an issue in his successful campaign to fill Edward Kennedy's seat and is fighting for a pay freeze.The federal government spends about $125 billion annually on compensation for about 2 million civilian employees.
"The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head," says Cato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. "Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits." But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says. "When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work. Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers. USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses. The BLS reports that 216 occupations covering 1.1 million federal workers exist in both the federal government and the private sector. An additional 124 federal occupations covering 750,000 employees — air-traffic controllers, tax collectors and others — did not have direct equivalents, according to the BLS. Federal jobs have more limited salary ranges than private-sector jobs, some of which have million-dollar payouts. Key findings: • Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector. •Private. The private sector paid more on average in a select group of high-skill occupations, including lawyers, veterinarians and airline pilots. The government's 5,200 computer research scientists made an average of $95,190, about $10,000 less than the average in the corporate world. •State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included. Job comparison Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data: www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htmAnother video on the subject: www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1433024213&play=1
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 8, 2010 13:33:45 GMT -6
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htmFederal pay has become a hot political issue in recent months because of concerns over the federal budget deficit and recession-battered wages in the private sector. PAYCHECK
The typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation. Median annual salary:
Federal Private Difference
$66,591 $55,500 $11,091
Sources: Bureau of Labor statistics, USA TODAY analysis----------------------------------------------------------- Federal pay ahead of private industry
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.
Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
CHART: Federal salaries compared to private-sector These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Federal pay has become a hot political issue in recent months because of concerns over the federal budget deficit and recession-battered wages in the private sector. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., made federal pay an issue in his successful campaign to fill Edward Kennedy's seat and is fighting for a pay freeze.The federal government spends about $125 billion annually on compensation for about 2 million civilian employees.
"The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head," says Cato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. "Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits." But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says. "When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work. Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers. USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses. The BLS reports that 216 occupations covering 1.1 million federal workers exist in both the federal government and the private sector. An additional 124 federal occupations covering 750,000 employees — air-traffic controllers, tax collectors and others — did not have direct equivalents, according to the BLS. Federal jobs have more limited salary ranges than private-sector jobs, some of which have million-dollar payouts. Key findings: • Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector. •Private. The private sector paid more on average in a select group of high-skill occupations, including lawyers, veterinarians and airline pilots. The government's 5,200 computer research scientists made an average of $95,190, about $10,000 less than the average in the corporate world. •State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included. Job comparison Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data: www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm and this is before factoring in pension plans and many no pay benefit plans |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 8, 2010 13:34:18 GMT -6
Yeah, right. I suppose federal accountants have to be skilled in cooking the books for us dummies in the private sector.
And their argument completely falls apart for jobs such as nurse.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 8, 2010 14:05:00 GMT -6
www.newsweek.com/id/234590Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers
In no other profession are workers so insulated from accountability.
By Evan Thomas and Pat Wingert | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 6, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 15, 2010
The relative decline of American education at the elementary- and high-school levels has long been a national embarrassment as well as a threat to the nation's future. Once upon a time, American students tested better than any other students in the world. Now, ranked against European schoolchildren, America does about as well as Lithuania, behind at least 10 other nations. Within the United States, the achievement gap between white students and poor and minority students stubbornly persists—and as the population of disadvantaged students grows, overall scores continue to sag. For much of this time—roughly the last half century—professional educators believed that if they could only find the right pedagogy, the right method of instruction, all would be well. They tried New Math, open classrooms, Whole Language—but nothing seemed to achieve significant or lasting improvements. Yet in recent years researchers have discovered something that may seem obvious, but for many reasons was overlooked or denied. What really makes a difference, what matters more than the class size or the textbook, the teaching method or the technology, or even the curriculum, is the quality of the teacher. Much of the ability to teach is innate—an ability to inspire young minds as well as control unruly classrooms that some people instinctively possess (and some people definitely do not). Teaching can be taught, to some degree, but not the way many graduate schools of education do it, with a lot of insipid or marginally relevant theorizing and pedagogy. In any case the research shows that within about five years, you can generally tell who is a good teacher and who is not. It is also true and unfortunate that often the weakest teachers are relegated to teaching the neediest students, poor minority kids in inner-city schools. For these children, teachers can be make or break. "The research shows that kids who have two, three, four strong teachers in a row will eventually excel, no matter what their background, while kids who have even two weak teachers in a row will never recover," says Kati Haycock of the Education Trust and coauthor of the 2006 study "Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality." Nothing, then, is more important than hiring good teachers and firing bad ones. But here is the rub. Although many teachers are caring and selfless, teaching in public schools has not always attracted the best and the brightest. There once was a time when teaching (along with nursing) was one of the few jobs not denied to women and minorities. But with social progress, many talented women and minorities chose other and more highly compensated fields. One recent review of the evidence by McKinsey & Co., the management consulting firm, showed that most schoolteachers are recruited from the bottom third of college-bound high-school students. (Finland takes the top 10 percent.) At the same time, the teachers' unions have become more and more powerful. In most states, after two or three years, teachers are given lifetime tenure. It is almost impossible to fire them. In New York City in 2008, three out of 30,000 tenured teachers were dismissed for cause. The statistics are just as eye-popping in other cities. The percentage of teachers dismissed for poor performance in Chicago between 2005 and 2008 (the most recent figures available) was 0.1 percent. In Akron, Ohio, zero percent. In Toledo, 0.01 percent. In Denver, zero percent. In no other socially significant profession are the workers so insulated from accountability. The responsibility does not just fall on the unions. Many principals don't even try to weed out the poor performers (or they transfer them to other schools in what's been dubbed the "dance of the lemons"). Year after year, about 99 percent of all teachers in the United States are rated "satisfactory" by their school systems; firing a teacher invites a costly court battle with the local union. Over time, inner-city schools, in particular, succumbed to a defeatist mindset. The problem is not the teachers, went the thinking—it's the parents (or absence of parents); it's society with all its distractions and pathologies; it's the kids themselves. Not much can be done, really, except to keep the assembly line moving through "social promotion," regardless of academic performance, and hope the students graduate (only about 60 percent of blacks and Hispanics finish high school). Or so went the conventional wisdom in school superintendents' offices from Newark to L.A. By 1992, "there was such a dramatic achievement gap in the United States, far larger than in other countries, between socioeconomic classes and races," says Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality. "It was a scandal of monumental proportions, that there were two distinct school systems in the U.S., one for the middle class and one for the poor." In the past two decades, some schools have sprung up that defy and refute what former president George W. Bush memorably called "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Generally operating outside of school bureaucracies as charter schools, programs like KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) have produced inner-city schools with high graduation rates (85 percent). KIPP schools don't cherry-pick—they take anyone who will sign a contract to play by the rules, which require some parental involvement. And they are not one-shot wonders. There are now 82 KIPP schools in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and, routinely, they far outperform the local public schools. KIPP schools are mercifully free of red tape and bureaucratic rules (their motto is "Work hard. Be nice," which about sums up the classroom requirements). KIPP schools require longer school days and a longer school year, but their greatest advantage is better teaching. It takes a certain kind of teacher to succeed at a KIPP school or at other successful charter programs, like YES Prep. KIPP teachers carry cell phones so students can call them at any time. The dedication required makes for high burnout rates. It may be that teaching in an inner-city school is a little like going into the Special Forces in the military, a calling for only the chosen few. Yet those few are multiplying. About 20 years ago, a Princeton senior named Wendy Kopp wrote her senior thesis proposing an organization to draw graduates from elite schools into teaching poor kids. Her idea was to hire them for just a couple of years, and then let them move on to Wall Street or wherever. Today, Teach for America sends about 4,100 grads, many from Ivy League colleges, into inner-city schools every year. Some (about 8 percent) can't hack it, but most (about 61 percent) stay in teaching after their demanding two-year tours. Two thirds of TFA's 17,000 alumni are still involved in education and have become the core of a reform movement that is having real impact. The founders of KIPP, Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin, are TFA products. So is the most aggressive reformer in education today, Michelle Rhee, the education chancellor of the District of Columbia, who is trying to loosen the hold of the teachers' union on a school system that for years had the highest costs and worst results in the nation. (See following story.) It is difficult to dislodge the educational establishment. In New Orleans, a hurricane was required: since Katrina, New Orleans has made more educational progress than any other city, largely because the public-school system was wiped out. Using nonunion charter schools, New Orleans has been able to measure teacher performance in ways that the teachers' unions have long and bitterly resisted. Under a new Louisiana law, New Orleans can track which ed schools produce the best teachers, forcing long-needed changes in ed-school curricula. (The school system of Detroit is just as broken as New Orleans's was before the storm—but stuck with largely the same administrators, the same unions, and the same number of kids, and it has been unable to make any progress.) The teachers' unions—the National Education Association (3.2 million members) and the American Federation of Teachers (1.4 million members) are major players in the Democratic Party at the national and local levels. So it is extremely significant—a sign of the changing times—that the Obama administration has taken them on. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is dangling money as an incentive for state legislatures to weaken the grip of the teachers' unions. To compete for $4.3 billion in federal aid under the Race to the Top program, states get extra points for getting rid of caps on the number of charter schools (a union favorite, since charter schools are often nonunion) and allowing student scores to be used in teacher evaluations. Measuring teacher performance based in part on the test scores of their pupils would seem to be a no-brainer. New Orleans uses student scores to measure teacher effectiveness. But it's prohibited by law for tenure decisions in states like New York, where the teachers' union has long been powerful. It will take a quiet revolution to improve American schools. Some educational experts have noticed an uptick in the academic quality of new teachers, at least at the high-school level, possibly because the recession has limited other job opportunities. One of the unions, the AFT under Randi Weingarten, seems to realize that sheer obstructionism won't work. "One of the most hopeful things I've seen is that the union people don't want to spend so much time defending the not-so-good teachers anymore. I think the pressure of accountability is paying off," says Haycock of the Education Trust. "They know they will be held responsible if they are defending teachers who aren't any good." Some teachers resent the reform movement as a bunch of elitists denigrating loyal and hardworking teachers—of whom, of course, there are many. But others welcome a boost in status that would come with higher standards. "You know, the Marine Corps never has any problem meeting its enlistment goals, because it's an elite corps, and people want to be part of something that is seen as the best," says Daniel Weisberg, general counsel of The New Teacher Project and coauthor of "The Widget Effect," a critique of teacher-evaluation programs. In Europe, where teachers enjoy more social prestige and higher salaries, schools have no trouble attracting new teachers with strong academic records. Before the American public--education system can regain its lost crown as the envy of the world, local politicians and school administrators will have to step up. At Central Falls High School in Rhode Island, half the students drop out of school, and proficiency in math measured by state exams stands at a pitiful 7 percent among 11th graders. Under state pressure, the local superintendent, Frances Gallo, tried to improve scores by requiring teachers to work 25 minutes longer each a day, eat lunch with students once a week, and agree to be evaluated by a third party. The teachers, who make about $75,000 a year, far more than average in this depressed town, balked. They wanted another $90 an hour. So Gallo took a brave and astonishing step: she recommended firing all 74 teachers. Her boldness was praised by Education Secretary Duncan—and supported by President Obama. The teachers' union initially squawked that everyone was unfairly "blaming the teachers," but then last week backed off under a storm of media pressure and accepted the new rules requiring teachers to spend more time with the students. The Central Falls High story was a notable breakthrough, but there is a long way to go. The media are beginning to root out the more outrageous examples: last year the Los Angeles Times ran a long series documenting the unwillingness of the education bureaucracy to fire bad teachers (like the one who told a student who attempted suicide to "carve deeper next time" and another who kept a stash of pornography and cocaine at school; both are still teaching). The Indianapolis Star reported how Lawrence Township schools had quietly laid off—with generous cash settlements and secrecy agreements—a teacher accused of sexually assaulting a student; another accused of touching students and taking photos of female students; another accused of kissing a high-school student; and a fourth with a 20-year history of complaints about injuring and harassing students, including a 1992 rape allegation. At the time the story ran last summer, all four teachers still held active teaching licenses. While these horror stories are sensational, what's also disturbing is the immunity enjoyed by the thousands of teachers who let down their students in more ordinary ways. Many more teachers are overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated. Maybe they'd get more respect if the truly bad teachers were let go. With Eve Conant and Sam Register Find this article at www.newsweek.com/id/234590
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 8, 2010 14:11:03 GMT -6
I was reading the comment section of today's Trib article regarding pensions and someone brought up an angle I hadn't thought of. Defenders of the pensions argue that they are constitutionally guaranteed and untouchable. However, can't the state levy a special tax on pensions, say 60%? (I am not aware of any constitutional language prohibiting special tax treatment.) Just set the rate to whatever would achieve the desired savings goal. We have heard proposals about special taxes on bankers' bonuses...this would seem to be the same type of thing. It would at least seem to be a weapon that the state could use to force the unions to agree to some compromises such as a two-tier system. Nice try asmodeus, but I would think the Courts would strike that down as circumventing the Constitution. What I believe will eventually happen is the State will default down the road. In fact many States will default. The unfunded liabilities will be restructured and we will go on. Watch for the Federal Government to come in and print more money as well. There is no question in my mind that the outstanding balance will ever be paid in full. The numbers just don't add up. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 8, 2010 14:19:40 GMT -6
Sad that in our lifetime we basically get to watch our Republic form of government at all levels be used by people who believe they can spend $$ on anything they want and that somehow, magically, that everyone down the road will just have all the money to pay for it all with no limits whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 8, 2010 14:23:01 GMT -6
Sad that in our lifetime we basically get to watch our Republic form of government at all levels be used by people who believe they can spend $$ on anything they want and that somehow, magically, that everyone down the road will just have all the money to pay for it all with no limits whatsoever. public employment is turning into "I am going to get mine" and you can pay for it. I see little government "service" in the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 8, 2010 20:22:19 GMT -6
I agree, but I think we will have to suffer through years of massive tax hikes first, before people see the light and accept the pain without rioting.
We will see the state income tax doubled or tripled.
We will see the ceiling on FICA taxes eliminated.
We will see our property taxes go up substantially.
We will see the govt force banks to make principle reductions on loans that are under water, thus rewarding imprudent borrowing.
After this, and probably a whole lot more, we may then see a legislature brave enough to bring the spending side down.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 8, 2010 21:15:58 GMT -6
You could be right on all of those asmodeus, although with the banks, you have property and contract rights so, according to the constitution, I would hope that the government can't abrogate those contracts.
As to the legislature, who knows. It seems to me that people are starting to get pretty upset with government. It you just read the two threads I update constantly (and believe me, I probably post about 10% of what I read daily) the voters might just get a pulse back and clean house in Springfield and Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 8, 2010 23:20:49 GMT -6
Interesting video clip on how the union agenda is crowding out the liberal agenda of providing care to those who need it. Listen to the guest after Robert Reich, the former labor secretary. Start at 2:00 where Dan Henninger comes in: www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1435392433&play=1 |
|
