|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Oct 20, 2010 9:03:18 GMT -6
Arch,
Certainly there are the few workers still working under lovely contracts, I will stress again: the average American worker.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 20, 2010 16:22:47 GMT -6
The French along with many in the EU have been living in a dream world for better part of a decade. Throw the strikers in jail, get the country back to work, and tell the general populace that these reforms are only the beginning. It is truly time for many in these countries to get back to production. Next they will be striking about the 32-34 hour work weeks being extended. Ask an average working American how many hours are put in per week. What happens in France stays in France SSSM (I took that from the Sin City Commercial if you didn't notice  ) What I am concerned about is resources becoming more scarce in the United States. Has anyone noticed all the debt and deficit spending, the unfunded mandates hemorrhaging red ink in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the governments departments like the Post Office, HUD, Freddie and Fannie, PBGC, Amtrak, and on and on. Juxtapose that with the plateauing incomes of Americans in the private sector (report last December by the BLS), falling household net worth (down 1.5 Trillion in the latest quarterly report www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/z1/Current/z1.pdf (see page 14, right column of the pdf)). Finally, on the State and Municipal levels, there are staggering unfunded liabilities for pensions and OPEBs (other post employment benefits). In Illinois over $130 billion at the State level ( www.illinoisisbroke.com/ ) and over $100 million in Naperville ( www.illinoisisbroke.com/newsitem.aspx?id=332 : "Naperville's unfunded pension liability, the amount it owes to its current and future pensioners in the police and fire departments, now stands at $101.5 million, and depending on how the markets do, that figure could continue to grow. According to a state law passed in 1993, the city will have to pay that bill, that is, it will have to be 100 percent funded, by 2033"). What is happening in Europe is coming to the United States. How will our public unions react? That is my concern. The numbers just do not add up, so something has to give. So far the evidence is fewer public employees. One of the first areas hit has been the state police. Eventually I think it will hit virtually every aspect of government in a similar fashion. A good example in Europe is the UK:
UK government stakes its future on austerity plan
By DAVID STRINGER | Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:39 pm
Britain outlined the sharpest cuts to public spending since World War II on Wednesday _ slashing benefits and cutting public sector jobs with an austerity plan aimed at clearing record debts that swelled during the global financial crisis.
After the country spent billions bailing out indebted banks, and suffered a squeeze on tax revenue and an increase in welfare bills, Treasury chief George Osborne has staked the coalition government's future on tough economic remedies.
Osborne confirmed there would be 81 billion pounds ($128 billion) in spending cuts through 2015, which he claims are necessary along with some tax increases to wipe out a spending deficit of 109 billion pounds ($172 billion).
As many as half a million public sector jobs will be lost, about 18 billion ($28.5 billion) axed from welfare payments and the pension age raised to 66 by 2020, earlier than previously planned.
Even Queen Elizabeth II will take a hit, asked to trim the budget the government provides for her staff by 14 percent. "It is a hard road, but it leads to a better future," Osborne said, preparing the public for hardship as he seeks a balanced budget within four years. Osborne stood on the floor of the House of Commons for more than an hour and dismantled program after program built during the Labour government's 13-year reign, saying Britain must pay "the bills from a decade of debt." The Conservatives promised to scythe through Britain's debts after they made an unlikely pact to form a government with the smaller Liberal Democrats following an inconclusive May election. Labour lawmaker Alan Johnson, his party's economic spokesman, claimed many Conservatives relished the chance to shrink the size of the British state. "We've seen people cheering the deepest cuts to public spending in living memory," he said. Osborne insisted Britain's richest would bear the greatest burden of tax rises and welfare cuts, citing changes that will see about 1.5 million better off families lose child benefit payments. However, housing payments and about a dozen other benefits for poorer Britons will also be restricted. As ordinary Britons lose out, Osborne confirmed that a temporary levy on bank balance sheets will be made permanent to "extract the maximum sustainable taxes from the banking system." Spending on health, education and overseas aid will be maintained at current levels or increased, while many major transport and climate change projects will go ahead. But almost all other areas of government face average cuts of 19 percent to their budgets _ which are severe, but not the 25 percent cuts initially feared. Some critics believe the government could have chosen to clear Britain's debts at a slower pace, protecting public sector jobs. They accuse Osborne of an ideological commitment to small government _ and using the crisis to accomplish that. "This spending review will throw a generation of people on the scrap heap," said Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services labor union. "These cuts are a political choice." Osborne confirmed the policing budget will fall by 4 percent a year _ part of an overall 23 percent cut to the Home Office's resource spending. The Association of Chief Police Officers said Britain would have fewer police as a result. In one of the most significant proposals, Osborne said the state pension age for men and women will rise to 66 by 2020, four years early. It will alter retirement plans for 5 million people, but save 5 billion pounds ($7.8 billion) a year once it comes into effect. Members of the public across Britain were anxiously examining the details, fearing the impact on jobs and services "We didn't know four years ago that we would be in this mess, and now that we are in the middle of it we just have to adapt," said Francois Borne, a 52-year-old art expert. Ronke Osekita, a 40-year-old government inspector, said executives _ rather than police officers _ should be lost under the cuts. "You can't put a price on real safety, or the feeling of safety," she said. In the southern London district of Croydon, Eileen Dean, an 83-year-old retiree, worried about the possible closure of a government-funded community group in her neighborhood. "The kids aren't going to have anything to do, it'll be back to playing football in the streets and breaking windows," she said, as the group met on Tuesday. "I might have to join them." Britain's 85-year-old former leader Margaret Thatcher was among others debating the plans. Her son said she was pondering the consequences from her hospital bed, after being admitted Tuesday following a bout of flu. Her successor, David Cameron, announced earlier an 8 percent cut to the annual 37 billion pound ($59 billion) defense budget over four years. Osborne acknowledged the country's spy agencies must also make savings. Despite a 650 million pounds ($1.03 billion) package for new cyber terrorism defenses, Britain's three major intelligence agencies face about a 7.5 percent cut over five years. They share an annual budget of about 2 billion pounds ($3.2 billion), though the government never discloses the share given to each agency. Hundreds of London-based diplomats are likely to lose their jobs under a 24 percent cut to the foreign ministry's resource budget, while the British Broadcasting Corp. must take on the full costs of running the World Service _ previously subsidized by the Foreign Office. However, despite the cuts to domestic spending, Britain will meet a U.N. target to spend 0.7 percent of gross national income on overseas aid by 2013, he said. "Even in these difficult times we will honor the promise we made to some of the very poorest people in the world," Osborne said. Some analysts predict the public may demand aid spending is reduced as they cope with hardships at home. Recent surveys and protests suggest many Britons are already uneasy, before the impact of spending cuts is even felt. On Tuesday, hundreds of labor union members marched to Parliament _ and a handful of climate campaigners climbed atop the Treasury building _ to oppose Osborne's plans. Hilary Green, a 58-year-old lawyer said the government got its priorities wrong. "I'd definitely have more police than a lower national debt," she said at London's King's Cross rail station. "They should focus on taking away desk jobs, not retiring people from the front lines." ______ Associated Press Writers Benjamin Timmins, Alia Gilbert and Raphael G. Satter in London contributed to this report. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 28, 2010 22:05:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Nov 1, 2010 11:23:54 GMT -6
Finally a break in the insanity of investment returns: But not from the teachers union... My comments on the article in caps. www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1031-pension-spiral-20101030,0,2480041.story chicagotribune.com Illinois pensions cut investment expectations
Move will cause unfunded liabilities to riseBy Kathy Bergen, Tribune reporter October 30, 2010 Illinois' unfunded pension liability, already the worst in the nation, is expected to spiral to even higher levels because the financially desperate funds are revising their investment goals downward. The funds are desperate on more than one front. They are not getting their monthly contributions from the state on a timely basis. And those delays are forcing them to sell fund assets at an annualized rate approaching 10 percent to pay benefits to retirees. The one-two punch is deflating their bottom line. Now, as much as it hurts during an already painful time, the funds are coming clean, acknowledging that conditions have made it impossible to hit their investment targets. Three of the five funds officially ratcheted down their investment return targets in the past two weeks, which will increase the state's pension costs in the next fiscal year and beyond."We keep having to transfer money out to pay benefits, and it's a … drag on returns," said William Atwood, executive director of the Illinois State Board of Investment, which manages the assets of three funds. Investment results have been hurt by the low-interest-rate environment as well.The pension funds' investment returns, together with contributions by the state and employees, are used to fund retiree benefits now and in the future. So when investment returns lag, the unfunded liability level rises and the state must fork over more to compensate.
The Illinois State Universities Retirement System and the Illinois State Employees' Retirement System, two of the three largest funds, each reduced their assumed annualized rate of return to 7.75 percent, from 8.50 percent, while the much smaller Illinois Judges' Retirement System lowered its goal to 7 percent, from 8 percent.
The Illinois Teachers' Retirement System, the largest fund, is standing pat for now. The Illinois General Assembly Retirement System, a very small fund, has not made a change yet, but its board may consider the issue next month. For the university pension fund, the change will push its liability level up by $2.4 billion, or more than 8 percent, to $30.1 billion, which in turn will reduce its funded level to 40.24 percent, from 43.75 percent. And the state's annual contribution will rise by nearly $100 million, or more than 11 percent, to $980 million, according to William Mabe, executive director of the university pension system. "I think this is a more accurate picture of the state of the economy and our liabilities," he said. The 8.5 percent assumption was viewed by some observers as quite aggressive, with most state funds around the country using targets closer to 8 percent.
The state employees' and judges' funds have not finalized figures on how the changes will affect their liability levels and the state's contributions, but administrators estimate they will rise by 8 to 10 percent, said Timothy Blair, executive secretary for both funds. The rising price tags for Illinois taxpayers come as the Illinois Senate is set to reconvene Thursday, at Gov. Pat Quinn's request, to consider whether to borrow to meet annual pension obligations once again. The state would issue bonds for up to $4.1 billion in state contributions to the five funds in fiscal 2011, which began July 1. The move was approved by the House on May 25 but was not called for a vote in the Senate because Democrats were not able to get the full support of their ranks needed for a three-fifths majority, and the Republicans were not willing to step in. Some observers say not much has changed in the intervening time. But if the state does decide to borrow again, it will come atop more than $13 billion in previous borrowing for annual pension obligations, a portion of which ended up getting skimmed off for operating expenses during the tenure of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The bond issue could come in lower than $4.1 billion, perhaps closer to $3.7 billion, due to cost savings from the pension overhaul plan adopted last spring that cuts benefits to new employees, said John Patterson, a spokesman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago. While the recent steps by the pension funds to adjust their investment returns won't affect this year's state contribution, they will hike costs in fiscal 2012, which begins July 1, 2011. A spokeswoman for Quinn acknowledged the additional costs but said the governor pushed for the funds to lower their assumed rate of returns in order to paint a more accurate picture of the state's unfunded pension liability. "This is the fiscally responsible thing to do and should help with the state's bond rating," said Kelly Kraft, the governor's budget spokeswoman. She added that last spring's reforms should cut pension liability by $220 billion over the next 35 years.
BUT THIS RECENTLY PASSED LEGISLATION HAS NO EFFECT ON EXISTING EMPLOYEES UNFUNDED LIABILITIES... A number of observers applaud the funds' lowering of investment expectations but say the scale of the state's pension problem remains vastly underestimated.
While the state estimates its unfunded liability will approach $80 billion this fiscal year, Joshua Rauh, an associate professor of finance at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, thinks a more accurate figure is nearly double that.
When the state pension funds project how much they will owe retirees, or their liability, they convert the sum into today's dollars, figuring those dollars will be invested and provide annualized returns in line with the fund's stated investment goals, most of which are in the vicinity of 8 percent.Rauh believes the state should peg its plan, instead, to risk-free returns such as those provided by Treasury bonds. In assessing the liability levels of the state's three biggest funds last year, he used a range of rates, from 2.7 percent to 4.5 percent.
"You can't pretend you can get 8 percent without risk," Rauh said. "It's asking future generations to come up with payments when the stock market does poorly, and that's a time when they are hurting the most."
The Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago, which has been pushing for deeper pension cutbacks, agrees with Rauh's assessment.
"By understating the problem, the legislature has been able to justify underfunding the pensions, which has caused the problem to get worse each year," said R. Eden Martin, president of the not-for-profit organization.
The pension funds say they hit their investment targets over the long haul, though they acknowledge the returns of the past decade have been weak, both because the decade began in a frothy 2000 and because the markets plunged in 2008.
The Illinois Teachers' Retirement System, for instance, saw annualized returns of 3.72 percent in the past decade but hit 8.6 percent over the past 25 years, just a hair over its target of 8.5 percent, said Dave Urbanek, a spokesman for the system.
Rauh's projections "deliberately undercut the revenues that pension systems would create through investments," Urbanek said.
THE INVESTMENT RETURNS OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS ARE SUSPECT FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, WE NOW LIVE IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE ARE ALL LINKED IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT (AMONG OTHER THINGS). WHEN ONE BLOWS, UP LIKE WE JUST DID, IT AFFECTS ALL THE OTHERS, CREATING MORE RISK. SECOND, DEVELOPED COUNTRIES GROWTH RATES ARE PLATEAUING AND TO ACHIEVE RETURNS LIKE THE LAST 25 YEARS, INVESTMENT MANAGERS MUST GO FARTHER OUT ON THE RISK SCALE. RAUG IS NOT THE ONLY ONE TO SAY THIS. SEE THE COMMENTS OF BLACKROCK AND PIMCO, AMONG OTHERS.
The teachers' system, the largest of the five, only reviews its assumed rate of return every five years, and that review will not roll around again until 2012, he said.The fund isn't happy about having to sell off assets to make monthly payments, but because of its size, it has more room to maneuver, he said. "We have had an unfunded liability problem since the 1950s, and the Teachers' Retirement System is still in business," Urbanek said. kbergen@tribune.com Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Nov 1, 2010 21:32:10 GMT -6
Where do I sign up for a risk-free 7.75%?
We need to wake up and stop guaranteeing investment returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Nov 3, 2010 16:05:43 GMT -6
Lets talk politics. There is no doubt there are many reasons why the election for governor shows Quinn in the lead. Did the unions help? If so, does it have anything to do with a quid pro quo? How much of the voting is about money and political favors? You decide. www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#ILG00p1Scroll down to the union question: Anyone in Household Belong to a Labor Union? In fact, go to the Nevada election or just about any election for that matter to see the union influence for Dems. What are the implications if government continues to grow producing more government employees with those nice pensions that are bankrupting the State and the taxpayer? Quid pro quo? You decide. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Nov 3, 2010 17:57:59 GMT -6
Where do I sign up for a risk-free 7.75%? Easy, the same place you sign up for Treasury bonds that yield 4.5% as referenced in the article. Do these people do drugs? Good luck with that with 600 billion of quantitive easing going on. The government is gonna need to start charging you to hold cash in return for a nice predictable loss in face of inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Nov 12, 2010 17:50:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Nov 12, 2010 18:46:09 GMT -6
Balls in a politician... and balls in the right direction. Amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Nov 29, 2010 19:57:43 GMT -6
Gotta give it to nurses union in CA, they seem to have done the right thing by bringing down Meg Whitman for taking advantage of a helpless illegal alien, her former house keeper. "One of the most tantalizing mysteries in California's 2010 gubernatorial election involved the connection between one of the state's poorest women and one of its wealthiest.
How did an undocumented, Mexican-born housekeeper, Nicandra Diaz Santillan, end up in the national spotlight, boldly confronting her former boss, billionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman?
The short answer: with the help of a union.
The longer answer is that at the height of the gubernatorial race, as campaign ads blared on Spanish-language television, the aggrieved housekeeper was determined to tell Californians her story of being abruptly fired by Whitman after nearly a decade on the job.
In early September, Diaz turned to a friend who knew a member of the powerful, Oakland-based California Nurses Association, The Chronicle has learned."
Read the entire story here: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/23/MN151GFQK1.DTL&type=printableUh, well, wait a minute... Maybe I better retract that statement....maybe they didn't have the best of intentions...no, that can't be. A bunch of nurses would never have less than the best intentions...would they? I guess they could if it's union first and nurse second! But you be the judge: "In her gubernatorial campaign, California billionaire Meg Whitman fancies herself a turnaround artist, not unlike CEOs who take on failing companies and put them in the black. In her analysis of why the nation's most populous state and the world's 12th largest economy has a chronically dysfunctional government, one villain stands out: public-employee unions...
The unions, of course, have taken notice of Whitman's attack and are fighting back. Led by the feisty California Nurses Association (CNA), they are challenging Whitman on the campaign trail and backing the candidacy of Democrat Jerry Brown. And so in one corner, the nurses engage in street theater that entertains and provokes as they take on Whitman. In the other is the candidate who has spent an astonishing $91 million thus far, hiring the best political consultants money can buy. "Californians love nurses, teachers and firefighters, but they hate the unions that these folks belong to," says Jack Pitney, a professor at Claremont McKenna College and a former GOP official. "If it's Meg vs. nurses, teachers and firefighters, she loses. [But] if it's Meg vs. the union bosses, she wins." (For now, the frugal Brown is neck and neck with Whitman in the polls, even though he has spent all of $500,000.)"www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2004619,00.html CA is bleeding red ink, over 15000 CA public employees have retired on pensions in excess of $100000 per year. That's right, over 15000. There isn't enough money to go around, so the pensions come first. In the mean time kids going to college have to pony up 32% higher tuition to attend public universities. They protested at Berkeley and other universities and were allegedly beaten by the police (members of another union?). www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V-a1__5Ci8 (no this isn't Europe) Oh and who made all this possible? Jerry Brown! "Perhaps even more damaging to California was 1978 legislation signed by then Gov. Brown allowing collective bargaining for public employees. No single act has changed California for the worse more than this one.
Before 1978, there was a relatively small state government. Employees were protected by civil service. Pay was lower than comparable jobs in the private sector but job security and good benefits – plus the old notion of "public service" – drew many talented people to work in government.
Today, the primary goal of powerful public employee unions is to get the Legislature they bought and paid for to enact a new law making it illegal for any city or county to declare bankruptcy without guaranteeing union contract terms. Taxpayers and "public service" be damned. "www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=163253Who will get the last laugh? Who know's... In the mean time jobs are leaving CA by the thousands. Where are they going? Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Dec 6, 2010 12:03:38 GMT -6
Just under 40% of every federal employee's salary and benefits is being paid with borrowed money. Total debt outstanding, either directly or indirectly, stands at about $14 trillion (and counting). Yet in the last two years over 150000 new federal workers have been hired. Average pay and benefits, per BLS www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdfwww.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htmwww.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htmwww.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htmOther discussion: www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-01-fedpay01_ST_N.htmwww.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htmwww.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htmwww.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-vs-private-pay-a-response-to-opm-director-john-berry/www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/comparing-pay-in-the-federal-government-and-the-private-sectorblogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2010/04/federal-employee-salaries.htmlwww.usa.gov/Federal_Employees/Benefits.shtmlDecember 5, 2010 New York Times For Federal Employees, a Feeling of Being Targets in the Budget Wars By ASHLEY PARKER WASHINGTON — Iyauta Moore may be many things — a single mother raised by a single mother in the South Bronx, a 34-year-old woman with a master’s degree in public administration from American University, a top-level government employee who makes a little over $100,000 a year — but she bristles at the notion that she is just another overpaid, underworked, cosseted bureaucrat. “What I do here involves creating something that doesn’t exist,” she said of her job at the Department of Education, where she is establishing a group to help oversee all of the department’s grants. “That’s not pushing paper.” Ms. Moore, who is a member of the American Federation of Government Employees, added: “We’re out and we’re making a difference in the community. And I don’t really think you can put a dollar figure on that.” But as politicians intent on cutting the federal budget try to do just that, career government employees are feeling besieged. During the midterm elections, the federal work force became a target for Republicans in particular. In a speech in Cleveland, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the top Republican in the House, called it “nonsense” that “taxpayers are subsidizing the fattened salaries and pensions of federal bureaucrats.” And last week, President Obama proposed a two-year freeze on the salaries of federal employees. “I think federal employees are definitely getting a bad rap and definitely have become political punching bags,” said William R. Dougan, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which represents 110,000 blue- and white-collar government workers. “It’s hard for people, until they actually experience not having some of the services that the government provides, to understand what the government does.” Mathew Kolodzie, 31, is a Department of Defense firefighter at the Watervliet Arsenal near Albany. He works two days on, followed by three days off, and is required to work a minimum of 144 hours over a two-week pay period. This year, he spent Thanksgiving at the firehouse. He is paid $48,113 a year, which he says is enough for him and his family to get by; he and his wife have one daughter and “one on the way.” But, he said, “This pay freeze isn’t the greatest timing, especially around Christmas.” Carl Houtman, 49, is a research chemical engineer for the Forest Service in Madison, Wis. As an upper-level government employee, he makes around $100,000 a year, but says that while his job is equivalent to that of a university professor, “a typical professor at my level is making $150,000 a year, and in private companies, I would be able to double by salary.” Still, he likes the freedom his government job affords — the flexible schedule that allows him to attend his children’s concerts and teach a tai chi class, the ability to “tell the truth, not filtered by whether or not my company is going to die, or whether or not I’m going to get tenure.” He considers his job secure. Mr. Houtman methodically logs in 40 hours per week on a time sheet, although, he says, he often works closer to 50. Critics point out that the number of federal employees making over $150,000 has doubled under Mr. Obama, but that fact is somewhat misleading. In 2008, thousands of federal employees were held under a $149,000 pay cap, and in 2009 when Congress raised that by 2.9 percent, it bumped a significant number of salaries just over $150,000. And the government has worried for years that a wave of retirements is about to hit, possibly costing dearly in talent, experience and institutional memory. The overall executive branch civilian work force, excluding the Postal Service, stood at 2,094,000 in 2009, according to Office of Personnel Management data — roughly where it was in the 1970s at the end of the Nixon administration. It grew under President Ronald Reagan, declined throughout the administrations of the first President Bush and Bill Clinton, and now stands roughly between the numbers for the Reagan and Clinton years. Government jobs can pay well, but comparisons with the private sector are complex. “At the top, the government is not competitive at all; it pays much less,” said John M. Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group. “At the start of one’s career, it tends to pay below. In the middle, sometimes it’s about right. And for blue-collar and clerical jobs, the government is paying at market or above.” Some say there are fewer performance incentives in government employment. “Once you’re past your probationary year, there’s basically no reward for performance,” said James Sherk, a senior policy analyst in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization. And indeed, some federal workers say they are happy with the status quo. Lance Hamann, 40, works as a purchasing agent for the Department of Agriculture at a vocational jobs center in Puxico, Mo. His salary is a bit more than $40,000. He is the president of Local 1840 of the federal employees federation. “To me, there’s a rhyme and reason to all the red tape the government does have,” he said, “so I try my best to be patient with the red tape, knowing that’s just how the government runs.” He says he is happy where he is professionally, with a decent paying job in the town where he grew up. “I don’t necessarily want to move up the ladder, per se, and accept the additional responsibilities,” he said, “even though that may come with additional pay.” |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Dec 8, 2010 20:37:22 GMT -6
napervillesun.suntimes.com/2743107-417/dupage-district-illinois-income-park.htmlNational Taxpayers United of Illinois is hopping mad about public sector pensions and wasn’t shy about naming names, including many familiar ones, at its Wednesday press conference. “Gov. Pat Quinn has proposed a 33 percent increase in the state personal income tax, but an even worse state income tax increase is alive and well,” Jim Tobin, NTUI President, said speaking at the College of DuPage, in reference to HB 174, which would hike income taxes by 67 percent. The highest DuPage County pensions paid out by the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund are Robert Dunsmuir, Wheaton Park District, ($140,889 yearly), Allen Poole, City of Naperville ($140,672), Ronald Reinecke, DuPage County ($140,121), Keith Frankland, Woodridge Park District ($135,339) and Raymond Morrill, Wheaton Park District ($133,953). The highest DuPage pensions from the Teachers Retirement System are Gary Catalani, Wheaton Community Unit School District 200 ($237,195), Mary Curley, Hinsdale CCSD 181 ($226,645), Lawrence Baskin, Glen Ellyn CCSD 89 ($211,013), Donald Weber, Naperville CUSD 203 ($196,768), and James White, Queen Bee SD 16 ($192,875). The figures are from the Illinois Taxpayers Education foundation and are based on the figures available July 1, 2010.
Hope everyone enjoys your nice big fat tax hike that you elected Quinn to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Dec 13, 2010 10:15:06 GMT -6
Well said Governor. Only in America would we pass laws to prevent private sector monopolies while at the same time pass laws protecting public sector monopolies! www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1694880071&play=1 (added this video 12-15-2010) DECEMBER 13, 2010 (oped Wall Street Journal) Government Unions vs. Taxpayers
The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. By TIM PAWLENTY When Americans think of organized labor, they might think of images like I saw growing up in a blue-collar meatpacking town: hard hats, work boots, tough conditions and gritty jobs. While I didn't work in the slaughterhouses, I did become a union member when I worked at a grocery store to help put myself through school. I was grateful for the paycheck and proud of the work I did. The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America's working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation. Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000. Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt. How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions. Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion. View Full Image Pawlenty Images.com/Corbis Pawlenty Pawlenty Over the last eight years in Minnesota, we have taken decisive action to prevent our problems from becoming a state crisis. Public employee unions fought us virtually every step of the way. Mass transit employees, for example, went on strike for 44 days in 2005—because we refused to grant them lifetime health-care benefits after working just 15 years. It was a tough fight, but in the end Minnesota taxpayers won. We reworked benefits for new hires. We required existing employees to contribute more to their pensions. We reformed our public employee health plan and froze wages. We proved that even in deep-blue Minnesota, taxpayers can take on big government and big labor, and win. In coming years, that fight will have to be joined throughout the country in city halls, state capitals and in Washington, D.C. Reformers would be wise to adopt three overriding principles. First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama's proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees. Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities. Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars. The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them. If we're going to stop the government unions' silent coup, conservative reformers around the country must fight this challenge head on. The choice between big government and everyday Americans isn't a hard one. Mr. Pawlenty, a Republican, is governor of Minnesota. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Dec 15, 2010 15:12:43 GMT -6
The Irony of the direction States are going in, re collective bargaining for public safety employees, is S3991 that our own Senator Durbin supports. Look it up and see what it says.
DECEMBER 13, 2010 Wall Street Journal
Badger Rebellion
Wisconsin's next governor takes on public collective bargaining.
Wisconsin Governor-elect Scott Walker has laid out an ambitious agenda, such as turning the department of commerce into a public-private partnership and lifting the cap on school vouchers. But his boldest idea may be rescinding the right of government employees to collectively bargain.
Mr. Walker floated the idea last week in response to union opposition to his modest proposal to require employees to contribute 5% of their pay to their pensions and to increase their health-care contributions to 12% from as low as 4% today. Even along the Left Coast most state workers contribute 10% of their salary to pensions. The Republican estimates that these changes would save the state $154 million in the first six months. Over two years they'd reduce the state's $3.3 billion budget gap by nearly 20%.
The ability of public workers to form unions and bargain collectively is a phenomenon of the last century when state and local governments were relatively small. But it has proven to be a catastrophe for taxpayers, as public unions have used their political clout to negotiate rich deals on wages, pensions and health care. California governor-elect Jerry Brown greased the wheels for his state's long fiscal decline when he allowed collective bargaining during his first stint in the statehouse in the 1970s.
Rescinding public collective bargaining rights restores a better negotiating balance between taxpayers and government employees who ostensibly work for them. Political officials are no longer on both sides of the bargaining table—representing taxpayers in negotiations with the unions while seeking union cash and endorsements when running for re-election.
Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana and then Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri rescinded collective bargaining by executive order in 2005, and the change made it easier to cut spending and restructure government services. In Wisconsin, the legislature would have to rewrite the Employment Labor Relations Act, but Republicans will control both the assembly and senate and have the political incentive to go along with Mr. Walker.
Twelve states including North Carolina and Virginia don't allow government workers collective bargaining rights, and another 12 allow it only for some unions. These states by and large have managed to hold down their pension liabilities better than have those where public employee unions essentially run the government—see Illinois, New Jersey and California.
Republican leaders are often reluctant to challenge government unions so directly because it means a big political battle, but now is the time to strike when the public understands the need for reforming government. Mr. Walker's proposal is the kind of big structural reform that can make other reforms easier to accomplish. We hope it's the start of a national trend.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Dec 15, 2010 15:19:03 GMT -6
|
|
