|
|
Post by macrockett on Dec 17, 2009 23:23:34 GMT -6
www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/federal_employees_at_the_troug_1.html# (this article has links to other material) You can see at the end of this article that it was written and researched by a Texas CPA, not some right wing nut. It is well written and well researched. The other thing I would like to point out is this: I understand many people in the private sector have no time to follow what is going on out there as they are doing whatever they can to support their families. The problem is, if you don't get involved, if you don't write your legislators in state and federal government and express your concerns, this unjustified transfer of wealth from your pocket to the government largess will only continue, unchecked. Just think for a moment where the money went from the original TARP funds, banks (principally the large money center banks (BAC, WFC, JPM), Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, AIG, corporations with large union representation (GM and Chrysler). Then where did a large portion of the initial stimulus money go under the Obama administration? To state and local government and Education to save government union jobs. Did any of that money trickle down to small and medium sized businesses to save those jobs? In my opinion, the latest NBC/WSJ poll is a reflection of the disconnect many people in this country now feel about Washington. As you read the article below, if you are in the private sector, ask yourself whether this is the kind of deal you are getting with your employer. December 16, 2009
Federal Employees at the Trough
By Paul B. Matthews Last week, USA Today reported that nearly one in five federal government employees now earn over $100,000. The paper also reported the average federal salary rose to $71,260, almost $31,000 more than the comparative average private-sector wage. Within the Department of Defense, over 10,000 employees (as of June 2009) now earn at least $150,000 per year, a 5½-fold increase in the number of employees eclipsing this salary threshold from just eighteen months ago. At the same time as federal employee salaries have been soaring, total private sector earnings have steadily declined as the unemployment rate escalates (now at 10%) and the average workweek declines. In fact, in November, private-sector employees worked an average of just 33.2 hours, slightly above the all-time low set in October (33.0 hours) and well below the forty hours guaranteed to federal employees. Simultaneously, average private sector hourly earnings totaled $18.74 per hour, significantly below the implied hourly wage rates ($34.25 per hour) paid to the average federal employee. However, simply analyzing the growth in total paid compensation fails to capture the true explosion in benefits paid to federal workers. For example, government employees almost never work on weekends. And if a federal employee does work on Sunday, he becomes eligible for Sunday Premium Pay. Federal employees are also entitled to compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, a benefit few private sector firms are able to offer. Paid time off for federal employees is also extremely generous. Employees with less than three years' tenure earn twelve paid days off per year. For service between three and fifteen years, workers are guaranteed eighteen days off with pay. And when an employee reaches fifteen years of service, this benefit grows to twenty-four days. Federal employees are also guaranteed ten federal holidays with pay. With all this time off, some government workers might be hard-pressed to use actually use it. No worries -- federal workers have a very liberal carryover policy: thirty days for all employees. However, if you get stationed overseas, this policy expands to forty-five days. And if you become classified as a "Senior Executive Service," a "Senior-Level" [employee], or a "Scientific or Professional Employee," the policy expands to ninety days. Naturally, at retirement, or if an employee decides to leave government service, any unused time is compensated for with cash -- a lump-sum payout that could easily amount to between $6,000 and $17,800 based on the "average" federal salary figure. For senior-level employees who earn the highest pay levels, such payouts could easily total $30,000 and might even exceed $50,000, thereby eclipsing the average annual salary of an American in the private sector. The benefits continue. On top of paid time off, federal employees are also eligible for half a day of sick time per biweekly pay period. Thus, in a 52-week year, each full-time employee may accrue 13 days of sick time. There are also no limits on the amount of sick leave an employee may accumulate. Moreover, when an employee retires, any unused sick pay is added to the calculation of the employee's retirement annuity, thereby increasing the value of the annuity payouts received by federal employees during retirement. And yet there is still more. As part of the Student Loan Repayment Program, a benefit enacted by Congress in 2007, all federal government employees are eligible for up to $10,000 per year in student loan forgiveness, a benefit capped at $60,000 per individual. (This benefit requires ten years of government service.) Health care benefits provided to federal employees are also quite extensive and lucrative. Notably, there are a minimum of nine national pay-for-service health care plans from which an employee may select. To supplement these nine national plans, there are a number of additional agency-specific plans as well as state-specific HMO, HDHP, or CDHP plans that are also employee options. On top of basic health care insurance plans offered to its employees, the federal government also provides a full range of vision and dental care plans. Of course, all of these insurance programs are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of the total cost for a family policy) by the U.S. taxpayer. Finally, the federal government even provides a subsidized life insurance to its employees. Under this program, employees pay only two-thirds of the monthly insurance premium while the U.S. taxpayer covers the rest. On top of all these incentives, Congress has recently decided to expand the handouts. While consumer prices have steadily declined throughout 2009 (the annual CPI rate fell 0.2% through October), the U.S. Congress just passed legislation that would provide an across-the -board 2% pay raise for all federal employees. As such, federal employees will soon receive a 2.2% real pay increase as private sector wages remain stagnant or fall. Currently, the U.S. Office of Personal Management estimates that there are just over 4.2 million federal employees. Thus, based on the average salary figures reported by USA Today, total wages paid to all federal employees now total nearly $300 billion per year, or about $1,000 for every man, women, and child in the United States. Add to this figure the costs of insurance, paid time off, and retirement benefits (which have not even been quantified here), and the total federal outlay to "pay" federal employees soars by billions more. Simply stated, this trend cannot be sustained. With last year's U.S. federal deficit of more than $1.4 trillion, it will become increasingly difficult to reduce the government's level of red ink, particularly if the federal government continues to expand. However, it now seems quite obvious that the government employment will continue to expand, especially under a nationalized health care system or once Obama's new Consumer Financial Protection Agency officially becomes part of the government Leviathan. Americans and the media remain almost uniformly against the large bonuses being paid to Wall Street bankers -- even though these bonuses must come from the (albeit subsidized) revenues generated by these firms. Given what has been going on in the public sector, perhaps it's about time for Americans to refocus their anger on the public bureaucrats who feed daily at the trough of the tax dollars generated by their indentured servitude in the private sector. Paul B. Matthews is a consultant and a Texas-licensed CPA. He is a former hedge fund manager.
|
|
|
|
Post by slp on Dec 18, 2009 8:11:58 GMT -6
You point out some important things! Our founding fathers LEFT big government to form this country and yet that is the direction things are headed if we don't speak up!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 18, 2009 16:26:40 GMT -6
You point out some important things! Our founding fathers LEFT big government to form this country and yet that is the direction things are headed if we don't speak up!!!! one need look no further than recent surveys that show the majority - yes the majority of Americans do NOT want this health reform bill-- yet the Democrats in Congress are deermined to trudge on and spend the money anyway.... remind anyone of anything ? |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Dec 18, 2009 20:30:29 GMT -6
You point out some important things! Our founding fathers LEFT big government to form this country and yet that is the direction things are headed if we don't speak up!!!! one need look no further than recent surveys that show the majority - yes the majority of Americans do NOT want this health reform bill-- yet the Democrats in Congress are deermined to trudge on and spend the money anyway.... remind anyone of anything ? interesting observation; add to that the desire to meet a strict deadline as opposed to getting it right. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Dec 20, 2009 21:01:47 GMT -6
one need look no further than recent surveys that show the majority - yes the majority of Americans do NOT want this health reform bill-- yet the Democrats in Congress are deermined to trudge on and spend the money anyway.... remind anyone of anything ? interesting observation; add to that the desire to meet a strict deadline as opposed to getting it right. exactly - in a scenario of misplaced priorities, the timeline became the driving force - not the quality or need of the end result |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Dec 21, 2009 10:54:15 GMT -6
www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-pensiondec20,0,7619232.story chicagotribune.com Cash-strapped municipalities look to Springfield in search of pension solution
However fire, police union officials say funding problems are the fault of local governments
By John Keilman
Tribune reporter
December 20, 2009The financial outlook for many Chicago suburbs is as bleak as the weather, with revenue-starved towns planning to issue furloughs, chop jobs and trim services.
But as municipalities finalize their budgets, one part is safe from the carnage. The pension funds of police officers and firefighters will remain untouched, and in many cases, will see sharp increases in spending.
Many communities are boosting their public safety retirement spending to make up for poor investment returns. They're paying for it with rainy day funds, money shifted from other departments, even property tax hikes.
These pensions have long been a thorny dilemma for local governments. But the growing budget bite has added new urgency to the search for a solution.
Municipal officials say they will head to Springfield in January more aggressive than ever, determined to rally support for measures they say are vital to preventing a financial catastrophe. These include extending the date when pensions must be fully funded.
But the unions and retirees opposing them are equally determined, saying the problems are the fault of local governments that were too cheap to sock away money when times were good, forcing them to make steep payments in the middle of a downturn.
"They have got to acknowledge their mistakes and stop trying to demonize police officers and firefighters," said James McNamee, a retired Barrington police officer and president of the Illinois Public Pension Fund Association. "The cities did this. They should take a good look in the mirror."
The coming showdown is the latest episode in Illinois' pension drama. The retirement accounts for state employees are underfunded by nearly $80 billion, and officials have been borrowing money to pay benefits. Some experts say rising pension costs could ultimately bankrupt the state.
The same crisis is playing out in miniature in suburban communities, which fund their own police and fire pensions.Those retirement accounts receive money from three sources: the local government, the police and firefighters themselves (nearly 10 percent of their paychecks goes toward their pensions) and investment returns. Local pension boards, made up of government officials, retirees and active police and firefighters, decide where to invest the money. But when the market tumbles, the government is obligated to make up the difference. The stock swoon of the last two years has led to huge jumps in pension spending in some communities. Naperville is putting an extra $2.1 million into its police and fire retirement funds next year. Schaumburg must spend another $1 million, while Joliet must come up with an additional $1.7 million. Some towns say the only place they can get their pension money is through a tax hike.
Arlington Heights is planning to increase its property tax nearly 6 percent to raise the extra $1.6 million needed for public safety pensions. At the same time, plummeting sales and income taxes are causing the village to cut up to 25 jobs, impose a utility tax and reclaim money that had been reserved for special events, technology and vehicle purchases.
"People have lost jobs," said Mayor Arlene Mulder. "If they can stay in their homes, they've got this property tax to pay. It's really hard to explain to someone living on a shoestring, but that's the law."
An especially sore point for local officials is that they have no say over the terms of public safety pensions. The state legislature sets those conditions, which have become increasingly generous in recent years.Police and firefighters can receive a full pension -- 75 percent of their pay -- as early as age 50 (other municipal employees must wait until they're at least 55). Their retirement income is pegged to their final day of service instead of a four-year average. And when retirees die, their surviving spouses receive the entire pension; spouses of other workers get far less.
Police and fire officials say those terms are justified, given the dangerous nature of their jobs.
"It's a young person's profession," said Pat Devaney, president of the Associated Firefighters of Illinois. "It's a good public policy to have people leaving when their ability to physically do the job is eroding." Such arguments have tended to carry the day in Springfield. Local government officials complain that they've long been outmatched by police and fire lobbyists.
"One of them even has a pig roast every year for the legislators," said Schaumburg Village Manager Ken Fritz. "They put a lot of pressure on the legislature to pass (more generous terms). We go down to lobby against them, but that doesn't really factor into the political process."jkeilman@tribune.com Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune ----------------------------------------------- I don't make this stuff up, from CA to NY there is a common theme. There must be pension reform. Several months ago, on CNBC Governor Swartenegger's top financial adviser, a private equity exec said it best: act now or the pension liabilities will eat every dollar of state revenues. This article points out many of the issues, including the strength of the unions. Government unions grow more powerful every day. Unless those of us in the private sector push back, to equalize the playing field, there will be no services or our taxes will be so high that there will be little left for everything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Dec 21, 2009 13:55:15 GMT -6
Ponzi Schemes... all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Dec 27, 2009 16:24:42 GMT -6
online.wsj.com/article/SB126167437897504571.html#printModeDECEMBER 24, 2009, 12:54 P.M. ET
N.Y. Teachers' Pension Change Prompts Rush to Lock In Benefits
Associated Press ALBANY, N.Y. -- Prospective full-time teachers are scrambling to get into the state pension plan before a measure designed to save New York taxpayers billions of dollars takes effect New Year's Day.The change adopted this month means new hires will receive less generous retirement benefits than teachers vested under the current pension plan -- unless they followed the teachers' union guide to lock into the richer plan.New York State United Teachers alerted prospective teachers that they could lock in coverage under the more generous pension tier by working as a substitute teacher for just one day before Jan. 1. Teachers joining after Jan. 1 will have to pay 3.5% of their salary toward their pension for as long as they work. Currently employed teachers pay 3% for the first 10 years of service, then pay nothing. As of Tuesday, 3,198 workers had joined the pension system this month under the more generous tier -- about three times the number who joined a year ago, according to data from the state Teachers Retirement System. "It's astounding," said E.J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, part of the fiscally conservative Manhattan Institute. "Those teachers will all cost 30% more than they would have." "Over its life, the cost to the taxpayers will be hundreds of millions of dollars," Mr. McMahon said. The new tier was created to reduce taxpayers' cost of public-employee pensions, which have been getting more expensive each year. "Our obligation to members is to always make them aware of the changes in the law that could be harmful," said teachers' union President Richard Iannuzzi, whose union helped shape the legislation. "What we really are talking about is those who have already been put on an approved substitute list, and may have been putting off their first day of employment until January. .. Hopefully they heeded our advice." The NYSUT is one of Albany's most powerful lobbying forces and biggest campaign contributors. It and other public-employee unions were part of negotiations for the new pension tier with Gov. David Paterson and legislative leaders because a deal wasn't possible without union support. John Cardillo, spokesman for the state teachers pension system, said he wasn't sure why applications jumped this year, although news of the pension changes probably prompted some to apply. As for NYSUT's urgings: "It's probably safe to assume that had something to do with it." Teacher salaries are diverse and set in local school district contracts, with most paid around $40,000 in their earliest years to near $100,000 or more in the later years. Copyright © 2009 Associated Press ------------------------------------------------- This is just the beginning of change in public pensions. I suspect, even in New York, this will be the first of many modifications. As private sector employees continue to get squeezed, and they will, they will demand change. As unions represent a small portion of the electorate, their "clout" will diminish significantly in the next 5-10 years. If you didn't notice over the last week or so, Chinese companies bought both Saub www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE5BC0I220091214 and Volvo www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE5BC0I220091214In addition, Tata Motors Ltd., an Indian company, already owns the Land Rover and Jaguar brands and the 4th largest car manufacturer in the world is Kia of South Korea. These are but a few of the examples in one industry, autos, that show that the world is, and will become, mush more competitive in the years to come. The end result, in my opinion, will be continued downward pressure on salaries and wages in the United States. That, in turn, will put continued pressure Federal and State government. Colleges and universities and all education in general will be pressured as well to lower their costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jan 5, 2010 13:44:42 GMT -6
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd1c2552-f966-11de-8085-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1See also cnbc videos: www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1377356617&play=1 At 6:27 this morning "Pensions in Crisis" www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1377337255&play=1 At 5:40 CST this morning "Building Your Portfolio". One of the biggest pension fund managers, with $315B under management, who says pensions will have to move to defined contribution v defined benefit. US public pensions face $2,000bn deficit
By Francesco Guerrera and Nicole Bullock in New York
Published: January 4 2010 23:01 | Last updated: January 4 2010 23:01
The US public pension system faces a higher-than-expected shortfall of more than $2,000bn that will increase pressure on many states’ strained finances and crimp economic growth, according to the chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.The estimate by Orin Kramer will fuel investors’ concerns over the deteriorating financial health of US states after the recession. “State and local governments are correctly perceived to be in serious difficulty,” Mr Kramer told the Financial Times.
“If you factor in the reality of these unfunded promises, their deficits will rise exponentially.”Estimates of aggregate funding requirement of the US pension system have ranged between $400bn and $500bn, but Mr Kramer’s analysis concluded that public funds would need to find more than $2,000bn to meet future pension obligations.
A shortfall of that size could force state governments to take unpalatable decisions such as pouring more public money into their funds or reducing pension benefits. State and local governments have already cut spending to close budget deficits. Mr Kramer, chairman of New Jersey’s investment council and also a senior partner at the hedge fund Boston Provident, warned that outdated accounting models and unrealistic expectations of future returns had led states to underestimate their pension requirements.
Public pension funds do not use mark-to-market accounting, relying instead on actuarial numbers that average out value of assets and liabilities over a number of years – a process known as “smoothing”. Mr Kramer’s analysis used the market value of the assets and liabilities of the top 25 public pension funds at the end of the year. He also looked at market interest rates, which are used by corporate pension funds and are lower than the rate of return of about 8 per cent employed by public funds, to calculate future returns. Using the 8 per cent rate of return, the funding requirement of the US public pension system would still be about $1,000bn. Mr Kramer, a power broker in the Democratic party, criticized the financial metrics used by public funds and argued that his assumptions were more realistic. “The accounting treatment of public retirement plans is the political leper colony of government accounting. It is a no-go zone,” he said. Pension funds’ requirements are expected to compound the pressure on local finances. Thirty-six of the 50 US states, including California and New York, have plunged into budget deficits since fiscal year 2010 began, which for most states was July 1 2009, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- related story from November Public pensions may stress US state finances
By Nicole Bullock in New York
Published: November 5 2009 20:55 | Last updated: November 5 2009 20:55The next dose of pain for US state and local governments, which are struggling to balance their budgets in the wake of a national recession, could come from rising costs for the pensions of teachers, firefighters and sanitation workers across the country. On Thursday, Moody’s Investors Service released a report that said a broad deterioration in funding levels for public sector pensions is adding to the fiscal pressure on state and local governments and it could contribute to credit ratings downgrades in the next several years. “In the near term, investment losses from 2008 and early 2009 will weigh on pensions,” said Douglas Benton, senior credit officer in Moody’s public finance group. “Longer term, demographics will be a continuing pressure here. Just like every developed country, the population is aging in the US.” With the economic downturn, tax revenues have plummeted, prompting multiple waves of spending cuts and some tax hikes as state and local governments scramble to close budget deficits. According to the National Conference of States Legislatures, a nonpartisan research group, new budget gaps already have opened in at least 25 states since the latest fiscal year began. Most states start the fiscal year July 1. Decisions by select governments, like the state of New Jersey, to defer pension contributions to offset budget gaps can exacerbate the problem of under-funded pensions, Moody’s said. Most state and local government pensions are defined benefit plans and require some or all of the contribution from the employing municipality. The rebound in the financial markets since March and special accounting rules for public pensions will ease some, but not all of the pain. Pension plans use a method known as “smoothing” that allows the plan to average returns, typically over a three to five year period, to offset one bad year. The fiscal strain from pensions will lag the problems caused by the recent recession, but the pension-related impact on taxpayers is likely to persist and will be compounded as unemployment nears 10 per cent and home values fall 20 to 30 per cent, Moody’s said. Weak pension funding was a significant factor in Moody’s decision to downgrade the state of Illinois to A1 from Aa3 in April. The state plans to issue about $3.5bn of debt this year to help fund its pension. In August, mounting pension obligation pressure contributed to a revised outlook on New Jersey’s Aa3 rating to negative from stable. Municipal borrowers with lower credit ratings have to offer more interest to raise cash. Moody’s does not have a specific ratio that it considers the threshold for an adequately funded pension. On average, state pension systems have had funded ratios of about 85 per cent in recent years. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Jan 6, 2010 11:32:37 GMT -6
Does anyone have a realistic suggestion to correct the problem?
I seriously doubt that most voters have any concept of the scope of the problem - it is getting some attention in the press, but not enough, in my opinion, to reach the average voter. Even if it did, there are reports that about 50% of voters pay no federal income tax -- so why would they vote for restraint, they get the benefit without any cost....
I know there is a wide difference of opinion about the benefits or lack of benefits associated with the current health care legislation, but one point that seems to be undisputed is that the estimates by the congressional budget office take the legislation at face value, despite the fact that much of the savings is expected to come from cuts in medicare and there is no evidence of congress ever has had the gumption to actually make those cuts. Why should we believe they will going forward? ( I'm ignoring the issue of whether the cuts should be made, or even if they can be made, my point is that a large portion of the cost estimate related to this bill is based upon nothing more than hope, not reality, not history, just hope.)
What do we do when our elected officials are willing to ignore reality and resort to chicanery to justify massive amounts of spending? At least Nelson got something for his constituents ( at the expense of every other state.) Durbin got nothing for Illinois, yet, I fully expect Durbin to be re-elected......he knows the public's being misled, but it doesn't matter.
( By the way, I'm not making this up, the former head of the CBO pointed out that the assumptions in the bill are not realistic, but they have to score it based upon the language given, not what they think will occur.)
We have the same problem, on a smaller scale locally. Our city budget is divided into multiple pieces, and each gets a small increase year after year. No one looks at, or reports, the aggregate impact of changes in each of the taxing authorities.
The papers dutifully report that by "good management", we will not see our police protection suffer despite the reduction of 10 positions. Of course 8 of those 10 are already vacant so there really is only a change of 2. We won't be saving any payroll costs but not paying the 8 we already don't pay....but our government wants us think they are saving money. Heck under that theory, we could save millions by not buying Ferraris as squad cars. We'd save a quarter million dollars per car....deficit solved.
Where is the outcry? Where is the responsibility? We need to make very difficult decisions and I'm afraid I see no evidence our government -- at any level -- is up to the task. Worse, I see no opportunity to change the mindset of our elected officials.
For the first time in my life, I truly fear for the future and for my children's well-being.......
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 6, 2010 13:59:52 GMT -6
Does anyone have a realistic suggestion to correct the problem? I seriously doubt that most voters have any concept of the scope of the problem - it is getting some attention in the press, but not enough, in my opinion, to reach the average voter. Even if it did, there are reports that about 50% of voters pay no federal income tax -- so why would they vote for restraint, they get the benefit without any cost.... I know there is a wide difference of opinion about the benefits or lack of benefits associated with the current health care legislation, but one point that seems to be undisputed is that the estimates by the congressional budget office take the legislation at face value, despite the fact that much of the savings is expected to come from cuts in medicare and there is no evidence of congress ever has had the gumption to actually make those cuts. Why should we believe they will going forward? ( I'm ignoring the issue of whether the cuts should be made, or even if they can be made, my point is that a large portion of the cost estimate related to this bill is based upon nothing more than hope, not reality, not history, just hope.) What do we do when our elected officials are willing to ignore reality and resort to chicanery to justify massive amounts of spending? At least Nelson got something for his constituents ( at the expense of every other state.) Durbin got nothing for Illinois, yet, I fully expect Durbin to be re-elected......he knows the public's being misled, but it doesn't matter. ( By the way, I'm not making this up, the former head of the CBO pointed out that the assumptions in the bill are not realistic, but they have to score it based upon the language given, not what they think will occur.) We have the same problem, on a smaller scale locally. Our city budget is divided into multiple pieces, and each gets a small increase year after year. No one looks at, or reports, the aggregate impact of changes in each of the taxing authorities. The papers dutifully report that by "good management", we will not see our police protection suffer despite the reduction of 10 positions. Of course 8 of those 10 are already vacant so there really is only a change of 2. We won't be saving any payroll costs but not paying the 8 we already don't pay....but our government wants us think they are saving money. Heck under that theory, we could save millions by not buying Ferraris as squad cars. We'd save a quarter million dollars per car....deficit solved. Where is the outcry? Where is the responsibility? We need to make very difficult decisions and I'm afraid I see no evidence our government -- at any level -- is up to the task. Worse, I see no opportunity to change the mindset of our elected officials. For the first time in my life, I truly fear for the future and for my children's well-being....... Sam I couldn't agree more. I know Mike spends a lot of time reading thru and posting many articles to give shorter versions - more easily digestible in small chunks ---but who is doing that for Joe Public ? No One Durbin makes me ill- he stands up in front of the cameras and smiles abouts tuff he knows is total BS -- like how many jobs will be created with Illini Gitmo. 2/3 of those jobs will go to military personnel already in place somewhere. But as long as he can fool most of the people he goes right ahead. ---Every Dem in Congress should be embarassed that they have succumbed to CHicago style back room politics as they have for the health care plan. They are 'buying' votes for the plan and yet the public seems OK with this because the talking heads give them phrases to repeat ad nauseum - and they buy into it. btw- no love lost for the GOP side who also refused to work at all on any compromise -- they should ALL be let go. But the form of democracy we are 'selling' internationally in all these conflicts no longer exists in Washington either - the group headed by Reid - Pelosi and others is just bullying their way to whatever legislation they want - because they now can. Now if the shoe was on the other foot they'd be screaming to high heaven - but that's DC politics - at it's worst. I too fear for our children as both sides of the aisle have watched 10M+ white collar jobs parade out of this country in the last 10 - 11 years. Never to return. And manufacturing had already mainly left - which is why it will be impossible to pull out of this economic morass. However what can anyone do when even at a local level there is NO fiscal responsibility or restraint - the reason I was/am so pissed off about building a $150M high school is that we absolutely didn't need it. Every member of the sitting SB at the time knew the real numbers were 8800 or so and going to be 8400 in the not too distant future. This was not like they built believing something else - so why put us and the future generations here in more debt. ( the locations and other issues with that location just more blinders on vision) . When their constituents are losing homes to foreclosure every week in this area ( look at the maps available) - why burden these people with debt that was not necessary. No conscience- or a hunt for some ill conceived glory I guess- as many of these people have children here too. There are many who will be forced to leave after 2014 because of the tax increases on households trying to hang on right now. 204 makes up such a huge portion of peoples tax bills already - how could one add more unneccesary debt to the bottom line ? These are intelligent people whoknew there were other much less expensive solutions - what makes them do it ? In business most of them ( those with actual business experiene) would have turned down such a project for ROI reasons - but not in this role. Why again ? -- Would they add 4-5 rooms on their personal home if they needed 1 ? Absolutely not. So why do that to 204 residents ? 204 is just a microcosm of what's wrong with elected officials ( most ) right now... it's like they're playing with monopoly money and the markers are not real people. |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Jan 6, 2010 17:06:16 GMT -6
"one need look no further than recent surveys that show the majority - yes the majority of Americans do NOT want this health reform bill-- yet the Democrats in Congress are deermined to trudge on and spend the money anyway....
remind anyone of anything ? "
I laughed when I read this, in that this is exactly what I have been thinking.
The downside of living under a republic...many of our leaders sincerely believe that their role is to substitute their individual judgment for the judgment and wishes of their consitutuents (even when there is a clear difference and dramatic between the two).
The principal of our government is that ultimately our representatives are subject to being re-elected or ousted by the voters and thus, our representatives are accountable for their decisions. However, the reality is that, absent some very public and very toxic transgressions, it is very hard and unsual to unseat an incumbant. In fact, when an incumbant is unseated, it is usually because of an affiliation with a particular party as opposed to individual accountability related to their voting records.
I have just finally come to peace with the fact that our school board is simply representative of many "public servants". The motivation for their "service" is rarely based on a true desire to do good...but is based on either ego or self interest.
It is a nice addition to your biography to be able to say that you were part of building a new 150 million dollar school, but unless you are truly in it for the public good, it is not as exciting to be associated with an effort to stop a new school being constructed based on fiscal responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jan 6, 2010 20:40:18 GMT -6
Excellent point. Many politicians want to be able to point to a tangible "accomplishment", regardless of whether the project/building/policy was a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jan 6, 2010 20:45:10 GMT -6
I like that the article above used $2000 billion instead of $2 trillion. Sadly, many people can't even put their head around big numbers such as these, which only helps politicians avoid the wrath of the taxpayers.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jan 6, 2010 23:23:52 GMT -6
Does anyone have a realistic suggestion to correct the problem? I seriously doubt that most voters have any concept of the scope of the problem - it is getting some attention in the press, but not enough, in my opinion, to reach the average voter. Even if it did, there are reports that about 50% of voters pay no federal income tax -- so why would they vote for restraint, they get the benefit without any cost.... I know there is a wide difference of opinion about the benefits or lack of benefits associated with the current health care legislation, but one point that seems to be undisputed is that the estimates by the congressional budget office take the legislation at face value, despite the fact that much of the savings is expected to come from cuts in medicare and there is no evidence of congress ever has had the gumption to actually make those cuts. Why should we believe they will going forward? ( I'm ignoring the issue of whether the cuts should be made, or even if they can be made, my point is that a large portion of the cost estimate related to this bill is based upon nothing more than hope, not reality, not history, just hope.) What do we do when our elected officials are willing to ignore reality and resort to chicanery to justify massive amounts of spending? At least Nelson got something for his constituents ( at the expense of every other state.) Durbin got nothing for Illinois, yet, I fully expect Durbin to be re-elected......he knows the public's being misled, but it doesn't matter. ( By the way, I'm not making this up, the former head of the CBO pointed out that the assumptions in the bill are not realistic, but they have to score it based upon the language given, not what they think will occur.) We have the same problem, on a smaller scale locally. Our city budget is divided into multiple pieces, and each gets a small increase year after year. No one looks at, or reports, the aggregate impact of changes in each of the taxing authorities. The papers dutifully report that by "good management", we will not see our police protection suffer despite the reduction of 10 positions. Of course 8 of those 10 are already vacant so there really is only a change of 2. We won't be saving any payroll costs but not paying the 8 we already don't pay....but our government wants us think they are saving money. Heck under that theory, we could save millions by not buying Ferraris as squad cars. We'd save a quarter million dollars per car....deficit solved. Where is the outcry? Where is the responsibility? We need to make very difficult decisions and I'm afraid I see no evidence our government -- at any level -- is up to the task. Worse, I see no opportunity to change the mindset of our elected officials. For the first time in my life, I truly fear for the future and for my children's well-being....... Sam2. there is an abundance of information out there for people to educate themselves(just look at the material i have posted here under the two main headings). Unfortunately, like myself for many years, too many people for whatever reason fail to understand the magnitude, like you said, and therefore fail to see how it impacts them and abstain from involvement. A perfect example, and sadly there are many many many examples, is the front page of the Tribune today discussing the cutbacks at our premiere institution, the University of Illinois, because the state has failed to live up to it's obligations to the people of Illinois and to the University itself by failing to fund the institution. Another point I'd like to make is whether you pay income taxes or not, you are impacted in many ways, I guarantee it! You will feel it in property taxes if you own a home, rent if you don't own, fewer services to your family if, for example, you have special need children, fees and tuition for college, sales taxes, special use taxes, fewer jobs as businesses will look for a state with more favorable conditions (think Indiana here), and on and on. Anyone who thinks they aren't impacted in many ways has their head in the sand, pure and simple. As for the new health care bill, another train wreck, I know what your are saying is true. Just see David Walker on CNBC today discussing it yet again. He notes, among other things, that many of the assumptions used by the CBO in scoring the bill are just that, assumptions. www.cnbc.com/?id=15839263&tabid=15839798&tabpage=5&tabsortfield=mostrecent&tabheader=false&t=0.22825577300518873&tabsearchvalue=%22cnbc+us%22 (video at 6:15 CST) What do we do? (your 4th paragraph) Challenge them, write them letters, call them, tell the people you know that they should vote against them and why. Get involved. For Illinois Governor I think we have a great candidate, Adam An..(sp). See his answers to the Tribune questionaire, elections.chicagotribune.com/editorial/The primary is in early February, get out and vote. Go to some of the rallies. I have been to two recently where Adam laid out what he wants to do. As to the rest of what you have to say, I agree. Especially when it comes to my childrens' future. That is why I have started to challenge everyone of the people who represent me. The more people that stand up and say something, the sooner these reps will begin to listen. Far too many have taken for granted that our representatives have our best interest at heart. Based on my experience, that couldn't be further from the truth. There are good individuals out there for sure, but as a collective, those good people get run over and accomplish little due to the career pols. In addition, far to many of them have little experience and understanding of economics and finances. The best example of that is the pensions. I will say it again, as I have before, those outstanding liabilities will never be paid in full. In sum Sam2, get involved, vote and get others involved. There are way more people subjected to this than the special interests on the receiving end of the largess. They just have to reach the point where enough is enough, then they will finally get involved. Bases on what I read that day is coming sooner rather than later. |
|
