American Politics during the Obama Presidency

First, Bush never spent anywhere near the amount of money on the wars that Obama spent on stimulus or indebted us to in the future with his completely nutty plans at a time when we simply can't afford to be spending more. Also, I'm not happy with at least part of what Bush did and how he did it.

Second, I wouldn't have had a problem with a stimulus that actually stimulated something. Again, keeping government functioning at outrageous levels of spending via keeping state governments in cash and their employees with job DOES NOT in any way shape or form stimulate the economy. At best it keeps THOSE people employed, but it does not, in any fashion, CREATE jobs.

It's just like those idiots in the White house crowing over having created 400K jobs, when it turned out that yeah, the government did create those jobs, but to what effect? Those jobs were almost all census workers and when the census taking is done they will be out of work again!

Third, the government should not have butted its nose into things and made credit easier to get in the 90s and the 2000s, true, but the people or companies who went out and put themselves into debt, or the companies (around the world) who contributed to the debt crisis are the ones responsible! It is called personal responsibility - as corporations are considered an entity under most laws, corporations fall under that naming as well.

I have been one of those who over-extended credit in the past because it was so easy to get, and I learned my lesson the first time - apparently many can't do that, but that is THEIR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. Had they not done so, they would be much, much better off now when there problems.

BTW - I knew a couple of people who were helping bring people in and writing unbelieveable loans for people who couldn't afford mortgages in the early 2000s. They lied and cheated to get people those loans. Why? Because Fannie May and Freddie Mac made it so easy to get a loan, practically on someone's say-so. It was real easy to cheat the system. Yeah, government screwed up to begin with, and it should not have butted in, but those people who committed fraud or could barely get loans to begin with are the ones responsible because they should never have extended themselves like that.

In a twist of irony, one of those I knew who was preapring those loans lost his house himself in 2004 because he couldn't afford it. Had he hung on a little longer, there would be no doubt he would have lost it in this crisis.

Fourth, when you have a government that is increasingly making decisions for people, and telling them that it's not their fault, but that they are victims of those fat cats that made the mess to begin with (such an over-simplification as well) you tend to get a society that has given up its rights to the government, to be fed like a bunch of little kids, completely without any personal responsibility.

Fifth, whining about the current bozo that is in charge is what everyone SHOULD be doing. Otherwise, they will become Argentinos, where everyone is a giant pussy waiting to get fucked.

It's real easy to sit back and say that it is the government's fault that everyone was so far in debt, including businesses. In reality, it was not the government's fault that others overextended theselves, had no cash on hand, had no means of weathering a bad economy. But those people who point to the government and say "you made this mess by making credit too easy" are not looking in the right direction, completely.

Of course, that's just another example of where government should butt the hell out. It helps prove the point of conservative fiscal policies, even if not everyone in the country can afford to buy their own house. That's a personal problem, not a governmental problem. Let them rent - I did for a decade before I saved up enough money to buy my first house.

And maybe it's the cart before the horse - maybe we DID elect people who not only made credit too easy, but also can't control their own spending. We have Democrats saying we have to spend our way out of debt, even now. For fuck's sake, the socialist-leaning countries of Europe had to tell our government ENOUGH SPENDING! We have to decrease spending!

The solution that says we have to take personal responsibility is the only one that will really work in the end. Otherwise, everyone will depend on the government to make decisions for them and make everything alright. Of course, to start that sentiment, the government actually has to control itself and do the right thing by the MAJORITY of the taxpayers, not a minority of taxpayers who live increasingly off the government teat and blame all their woes on "fat cats" who, in the myopic view of those said minority of people, have too much money.

Iraq and Afganistan have already gone over 1.05B in current spending. That doesn't include the hundreds of billions that are going to be paid for disability and health care costs over the next 50 years. We know how effective that's been.

The "stimulus" (which covers all kinds of things) put a trillion dollars of demand into the USA economy. AFAIK, the intent was never to create permanent jobs. It was to keep the economy sinking into depression. The depression didn't happen (or at least hasn't happened yet) but we will never know if the stimulus was the difference or not.

Any solution that is based on expecting a major change in human behavior is a pipe dream not a solution.

But this is pretty boring so I'm going to go back to reading the writings of TL. He's much more amusing.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]Iraq and Afganistan have already gone over 1.05B in current spending. That doesn't include the hundreds of billions that are going to be paid for disability and health care costs over the next 50 years. We know how effective that's been.[/QUOTE]As a Keynesian, you should be a proponent of this government spending. Most of the money spent on Iraq and Afgan (excluding direct foreign aid, which is a horse of a different color) goes to US soldiers, contractors and US manufacturers (for both products and ongoing maintenance) while a minority of it goes to non-US parties. Therefore, the Keynesian Multiplier, so beloved by this administration (and so thoroughly debunked by this continuing recession) should apply to those dollars staying in US hands or being spent by non-US groups on American goods and services.

[quote=]The "stimulus" (which covers all kinds of things) put a trillion dollars of demand into the USA economy. AFAIK, the intent was never to create permanent jobs. It was to keep the economy sinking into depression. The depression didn't happen (or at least hasn't happened yet) but we will never know if the stimulus was the difference or not.[/QUOTE]The stimulus was sold to the American publis as a permanent fix to what was ailing us. When the rare pundit would point out that it was primarily focused on temporary jobs, he / she would be shouted down. When more than $250 million of that stimulus money was targeted for ACORN, you get an idea of what it really was. It was $800B+ of political payoffs. All of the "stuff" that the congress (primarily the left because they were in charge) could not get through during the previous eight years. We do in fact know that the stimulus has failed, thus far.

[quote=]Any solution that is based on expecting a major change in human behavior is a pipe dream not a solution.[/QUOTE]That didn't stop the fascists in Europe or the Communists in Eastern Europe and Asia (some of whom still think that they can do it)

[quote=]But this is pretty boring so I'm going to go back to reading the writings of TL. He's much more amusing.[/QUOTE]Agreed

[QUOTE=El Queso]First, Bush never spent anywhere near the amount of money on the wars that Obama spent on stimulus.[/QUOTE]El Queso - how well did you do in math when you were in high school?

W's Afghanistan and Iraq great adventures will cost over $3 trillion including years of medical bills for wounded troops and interests cost on the money W borrowed from the Chinese to pay for the wars, according to independent economic analyses.

And $282 Billion (one third of the $789 billion Obama stimulus spending) went to giving US taxpayers the biggest tax cut in US history!

Aren't tax cuts what you and Wild W are all about?

But hey what do facts have to do with the debates on this site?

Precious little!

Boy Queso, the macaroni story takes me back, in the day Kraft was 19 Cents a box and with that and a loaf of bread, butter, garlic salt I was set for the week. A single box lasted 1 to 2 days. But enough of that.

1. Personal responsibility is the key, the Dem's deny it the Rep's expound on it, nuf said!

2. As far as Obama, they sold the American public the "Stimulus" package saying if we did nothing unemployment would reach 8.5% but with it unemployment would not go above 7% - Wow I think we should have just "done nothing" and stopped at 8.5% unemployment. FYI the Obama administration is now saying well 9.5% isn't so bad, high unemployment will be around for a while so just get use to it.

3. Remember the "Obama HealthCare Plan", he crowed about and the guy he appointed to run Medicare who worships the British plan as the do all and end all of "great healthcare for the masses" with the added bonus of income redistribution? Well check out the new British PM, he is admitting the system is a failure and is seeking to decentralize it and hand over decision making to the physicians and not the bureaucrats, many of whom will not lose their jobs. (sob)

4. What is this BS of paid unemployment for 2 YEARS! What a total disincentive to work, just lay back and collect a check from Uncle Obama, collect food stamps ect. Folks won't get serious about looking for any job until the bucks run out. I have known many over the years when I would ask why don't you get a job at McDonalds ect, answer was – why should I get a job making minimum wage where I have to show up and work when I can lay on my ass and get almost as much from unemployment? Wow what a work ethic!

5. If you want to fix the economy do away with all the unfunded mandates / sacred cows of Welfare and Medicaid, keep Social Security and Medicare since we have been paying taxes for these benefits our entire working lives and cut out all the BS giveaways from both programs and pare them down to only US citizens and only those who paid in. If you read the original docs that is the way it was written. Maybe raise the age to some to offset long life expectancies and the surge of baby boomers. Ever since the Dems pulled the SS fund into the general budget back in the 50's Social Security has developed into the greatest Ponzi scheme every dreamed of – dwarfing old Barny's pitiful attempt.

6. A recent study published in the Houston Chronicle which is a real lefty newspaper showed people making over $250K were paying over 70% of the taxes, "middle income" i.e. under $250 were paying 28% and the "low income" were paying less than 1%. If that isn't income redistribution what is and you have to consider the Chronicle cherry picked the best study they could find. Most studies show closer to upper 80% of taxes paid by the folks over $250K.

Obama and his crew don't have a clue, just a bunch of wild ideas that work in fantasy land not the real world. None have run a business, made a payroll or worried about debt or market share. All they know is the Fed can print all the money they need. Budgets – living within your means are for state governments who can't print money or the "little people", not for them.

End of rant today, got to get back to work so I can pay the bills.

Doppelganer

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Boy Queso, the macaroni story takes me back, in the day Kraft was 19 Cents a box and with that and a loaf of bread, butter, garlic salt I was set for the week. A single box lasted 1 to 2 days[/QUOTE]When you could live it up and put some chopped up hot dog in the mac and cheese.

Naw - hot dogs were to pricy for me - those were reserved for the "fat cats"

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Naw - hot dogs were to pricy for me - those were reserved for the "fat cats"[/QUOTE]That's why I said live it up, I wasn't a high-roller.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]Stan,

Can you talk a little about why your current benefit package includes health insurance? It's a hugely expensive benefit (a good plan for 2000 people can easily be $20M / year) so I assume you have some underlying business reason to offer it.

If you drop the benefit, what effect, if any, do you expect the change to have on your ability to recruit and retain employees?

Are there specific provisions in the reform package that will force you to drop it or is your current thinking based on a belief that the package as a whole will increase premiums to an unaffordable level?

If premium costs are the issue, what were you thinking about the future of your health benefit prior to the reform package? Most companies were already seeing 8-12% on-going annual increases in premiums so your costs were already tracking to double every 5-8 years. At what point were health care costs going to overwhelm you anyway?

If you drop employer health care insurance for your employees, what will you do with the savings? Fund a health reimbursement plan? Increase wages to partially offset the the cost that your employees will pay to get health insurance on the open market? Create or improve another benefit, e. G. 401K match? Take it to the bottom line? What about the following year when you could have expected premiums to increase by 8%? Will you start to factor health care inflation into raises?

It seems to me that if there was an effective market for individual health insurance, we would all be better off than under the current system where employees are limited to the options provided by their employer. I suspect at this point, most companies would prefer to be out of the health insurance benefit business but realize that it would leave their employees without a viable alternative and themselves at a serious disadvantage in attracting and retaining employees.[/QUOTE]Sorry for the delayed response on this. I've been traveling a bit. I was in Brazil last week and just got back to the States.

As for why we provided coverage in the first place, that's relatively straightforward. Contrary to popular belief from some sectors on this board, employers aren't simply vipers who want to utterly maximize every nickel they can wring out of their employees. We initially provided benefits when our company became large enough to be included as a "small group" employer, with enough theoretical participation that the rates were not exorbitant. It takes most employers some time to get there. We had always wanted to provide insurance to employees as a benefit but, until your business reaches a certain size, it is difficult or impossible to offer a group plan. (Individual plans can be much cheaper, but you have issues with testing and pre-existing conditions, and they're not all that practical. Qualifying for "small group" has become a bit easier in recent years, but it wasn't when we began looking at the issue.

We're now a much larger organization, but we're still considered "small group" by the insurance industry. That has a number of consequences. Among them, you don't get to see what health care events led to their rate increases, giving you no real insight into cost increases. It seems like the finish line for becoming "large group" gets moved a bit further away every year by the industry, so you never quite get there. Even for a company that was growing 50% a year (and 30% the past two years) we never quite got there.

Today, we offer health insurance as much out of a desire to provide this benefit as we do for competitive reasons. Simply put, if you're bidding on large contracts in the service sector, your prospective clients expect you to offer health insurance to your employees, at least in our line of work. Among other reasons, clients believe it is a good employee retention tool. They are right, to a certain extent. That's not why we did it originally, but it is one of the factors we would have considered if we thought about dropping coverage before ObamaCare.

As to why ObamaCare might prompt us to eventually drop health care coverage, you have to consider the same two issues: (a) we want employees to have the option to get subsidized health insurance; and (b) for competitive reasons, it was a good idea. Now, consider those two issues after ObamaCare goes into effect. If we drop coverage, employees will still have the option of getting coverage. We don't have to provide it. We can just pay the penalty. According to our esteemed members of Congress, our employees will still get the same, high-quality coverage whether we provide it or not.

So after ObamaCare, the issue really is one of cost. Whether we provide it or not, employees will get health insurance. At that point, it's a much easier analysis. If you believe it will be cheaper to provide employer-subsidized health care, then you do it. If not, then let the taxpayers pick up the tab and just pay the penalty. So, there's the rub: Do you believe that insurance company plans will be cheaper after ObamaCare than the penalty.

Here's one glimmer of what the big boys think: [url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm[/url] Yep, you guessed it. The smart money thinks it might be cheaper just to pay the penalty. There is additional evidence that this already is true under RomneyCare, the precursor to ObamaCare, and companies in Massachussetts already are dumping their employees on the state tit.

But what hasn't been discussed yet is how the analysis plays out for small businesses. If big businesses -- who are either large group or self-insured -- are considering dropping coverage because it may be cheaper to pay the penalty, then there will be no question that this will be true for small businesses. As mentioned above, we're "small group." As such, we pay the highest premiums for group coverage out there. We have no leverage. If big companies with all the leverage are debating whether they can save money by paying the penalty -- and some of these companies have taken billions in charges already due to expected increases under ObamaCare -- then there is little doubt that this will be true for smaller companies.

As for what we'll do with the savings, I can't say at this point. It's all fairly theoretical. We already provide 100% dental. We already have a 401k. As a small employer, we pay through the nose for that, as well. (Again, no economies of scale, so we get fee'd to death and stuck with the annual audit tab. We already provide a 401k match and have continued to do so in these lean times. We don't have to do so for competitive reasons. Most of our competitors either don't have a 401k, or dropped their match two years ago. We continue to do so because we're making money and want to give back. I know that sounds silly. But, believe it or not, I'm hoping that just one former employee will remember me when he or she is retired at 70 years old and cashes that 401k check. That's really all that sort of thing comes down to.

But, the thing that galls any small business owner is the notion that "government provides" anything, or that government imposes anything where it has no business sticking its nose. So, truthfully, if the penalty cost is close to, or less than, our health care cost, we likely will dump coverage. There's no reason for us to provide it. Obama can provide it -- or at least claim to provide it after he picks our pockets.

At any rate, you asked so I thought I'd offer a response. I'm sure there are some who think that ObamaCare will actually reduce or rein in health care costs. I have absolutely no confidence in government to make this so, and in particular I have every confidence that this administration will actually make things far worse.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Here's one glimmer of what the big boys think: [url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm[/url] Yep, you guessed it. The smart money thinks it might be cheaper just to pay the penalty. [/QUOTE]This is not a mistake. It is to drive the entire nation onto the public option. If you make it a no-brainer for companies to drop coverage, then the idiots in the WH and Congress will say "See! It isn't working! The greedy employers and even greedier insurance companies aren't taking care of the people! We must take over 100%!"

Once a couple of big guys go (I. E. Drop coverage) look out below!

[quote=]But what hasn't been discussed yet is how the analysis plays out for small businesses.[/QUOTE]If you are a small business, there is a target painted on your forehead by this administration and congress. Small companies will be forced to either dump coverage, go broke or layoff employees. One move is to fire everyone and rehire as independent contractors. However, this would not be a safe move (considering the enforcement attitude in govt) unless you can structure it to really meet the independent contractor test (IRS guidelines) the alternative is to outsource you employees so that you have none (my goal)

[quote=]As for what we'll do with the savings, I can't say at this point. It's all fairly theoretical.[/quote] and on the federal level it is a fairy tale. Remember being told that we had to do this to save money? The GAO has already come out and said that Obamacare will be a net cost of at least $50B over the near-term and even more over the long-term.

[quote=]We already provide 100% dental. We already have a 401k. As a small employer, we pay through the nose for that, as well. (Again, no economies of scale, so we get fee'd to death and stuck with the annual audit tab. We already provide a 401k match and have continued to do so in these lean times. We don't have to do so for competitive reasons. Most of our competitors either don't have a 401k, or dropped their match two years ago. We continue to do so because we're making money and want to give back. I know that sounds silly. But, believe it or not, I'm hoping that just one former employee will remember me when he or she is retired at 70 years old and cashes that 401k check. That's really all that sort of thing comes down to.[/QUOTE]OK, what is wrong with this picture? Stan wants to do right by his people and the govt is stacking every possible obstacle in his way.

[quote=]But, the thing that galls any small business owner is the notion that "government provides" anything, or that government imposes anything where it has no business sticking its nose. So, truthfully, if the penalty cost is close to, or less than, our health care cost, we likely will dump coverage. There's no reason for us to provide it. Obama can provide it -- or at least claim to provide it after he picks our pockets.[/QUOTE]Yep. Govt is telling you to screw your workers. Your alternative is to screw yourself (which they will do as well) and go broke.

[quote=]I'm sure there are some who think that ObamaCare will actually reduce or rein in health care costs.[/QUOTE]I am sure there are some that believe in the tooth fairy and that the chica they just paid really is in love with them.

[quote=]I have absolutely no confidence in government to make this so, and in particular I have every confidence that this administration will actually make things far worse.[/QUOTE]Apparently, the GAO and and overwhelming majority of the populace agree. We'll see in November if they really do.

If you love the service you get from the USPS (FYI they are now going for another rate increase and are thinking about doing away with Saturday delivery) love the "savings" Medicare and Medicaid have brought you (in the first ten years of Medicaid and Medicare the costs were over 500% greater than projectd) and love the way Social Security is working (since the 50's the greatest Ponzi scheme in town) then you are going to just love ObamaCare – based on the British model which is now discredited by the new PM. Can anyone show me a program the Government runs that is both successful and cost effective?

What is coming for the small business owners (you know the ones who really create the jobs in any recovery) – the Obama administration is going to grab them by the heels, turn them upside down and shake every penny they can get out of them. There is no question it will be cheaper to pay the fine than pay for employee healthcare insurance. I'm spending $112K per year for healthcare now and since the fine currently appears to be tax deductible I really will have no choice – is a cost benefit no brainer. Any "savings" will be eaten up by additional reporting requirements for businesses to comply with the new statute – probably to the IRS since they are seeded the enforcement duties under the law.

I have been in meetings with clients and their healthcare providers and the picture is grim. The Aetna representative said if ObamaCare takes effect as written in a few years the Public Option will occur by default as all the private insurers go broke. They will be unable to make a profit and will continue to incur losses under the current rules. They will be forced to accept a shrinking pool of patients, which are sicker and cost more to care for while the IRS tracks down those who don't carry the required coverage and force payments from them when they find them (a process with will take months if not more likely years) and the fines they collect from business won't cover the costs of service. In the mean time insurance carriers are paying for healthcare costs NOW. Don't believe me – check out Harry Reid's comments in Vegas this last weekend – it's the dirty little secret along with the cuts in payments to physicians nobody wants to talk about. In Texas, primary care physicians are either dropping out of the Medicare program altogether or limiting the number of patient's they will take. They are not being hard hearted; they just want to survive since every Medicare patient they see is at a loss in most cases (costs more to see the patient than they are reimbursed for the care)

Regarding 401(k) when I started ours we did a 100% match which dwindled over the years. I now doing a 3% Safe Harbor match to eliminate some of the testing required by IRS for our plan. I just love the way the IRS tells you how much of YOUR PROFITS you HAVE to contribute to your employees to put back any of YOUR PROFITS for your own retirement!

End of Rant for today, got to get back to work and pay the bills!

Doppelganger

Thanks Stan. It's useful to see your perspective as a CEO.

I don't think it is at all silly to want to be known as a company that is a good place to work and I don't see where any US company can do that today without offering a health insurance plan. However, if you could get out of the health insurance business without effecting your company reputation or the good will of your current and future employees, you'd want to look at the financial implications of making that change. Correct?

As far as the companies discussed in the CNN article, any company that didn't look at the financial implications and options created by the reform package would be remiss. But it's a long way from looking at alternatives to actually making changes. However, if the exchanges prove to be a success and companies think that they can transition at little to no cost (nobody is going to say "drop") from an employer-based to exchange-based benefit without taking a reputation hit with customers and employees, they are going to do it. If the exchanges are successful and the financial penalties are low enough, employers would be silly not to change. I happen to think that's a good thing as I believe employer-sponsored health insurance is a major market distortion in the USA. It's also worth noting that all the companies in the article have large union work forces so the companies are always looking for a bargaining chip.

Of course, if the penalties are sufficiently high, employers will not drop plans and the exchanges will remain relatively trivial players. They might help you out as they are supposed to provide small business with the opportunity to participate in larger risk pools.

My personal belief is that the reforms are insufficient to do anything to stop health care inflation that will overwhelm us in 10-20 years. Stopping that will require hard choices that no politician can make and keep his job until the problem is still so obvious and severe that can't be ignored. Although I think that examples like California and public pension plans show that we are capable of inaction even when faced with pretty big problems.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]My personal belief is that the reforms are insufficient to do anything to stop health care inflation that will overwhelm us in 10-20 years. Stopping that will require hard choices that no politician can make and keep his job until the problem is still so obvious and severe that can't be ignored. Although I think that examples like California and public pension plans show that we are capable of inaction even when faced with pretty big problems.[/QUOTE]Absolutely true, where California is concerned. The problem and the dynamic are plain for all to see. There is a Democrat-controlled legislature in California and there has been for a long, long time. Their primary constituency and primary contributors are the public sector unions.

So, when it comes to negotiating government contracts with these unions, there is an obvious conflict of interest. It may not be a conflict in the traditional sense, but it is plain as the nose on your face: The foxes are guarding the hen house. There is no incentive for Democrat lawmakers to "get tough" with their biggest constituency, so they've been giving away the store for decades. This process plays out on the state, county and municipal level. It's now at the breaking point. But, who's going to put their foot down? Certainly not Democrat lawmakers.

Study after study has shown that public employees are compensated higher and have richer benefits packages than their private sector counterparts. They also aren't subject to the same free-market pressures -- when the entity is not successful, there are consequences, such as layoffs. Public sector employees are largely insulated from that.

Anyone who has dealt with government, [I]especially in California[/i], knows that employees are largely incompetent. This doesn't mean they are inherently bad people. But, the system that is in place, largely because of union rules and unaccountability, fosters incompetence. When you run a company, you feel personally responsible for the bottom line. Even if you don't feel directly responsible, pressures will be brought to bear on middle and lower level managers when the entity is failing. Generally, the same is not true on the public sector side. There's no one who feels directly responsible. To the extent senior managers have any interest, it is in protecting their budget and expanding their head count. Unfortunately, for most of these folks, that's how they measure status and that's how they massage their egos.

Until this system breaks, there will be no good solution. California is in a particularly acute dilemma. Democrats' traditional response to these issues is to simply raise taxes. But, that's not really a viable option at this point since state and local taxes already are among the highest in the nation. So, it can't raise taxes without driving away wealthy individuals and businesses. Many who could go already have left. That erodes the tax base further. It's credit is impaired. And, it's not willing to make the long-term structural changes that are necessary (e. G. Pension reform) because the legislature is controlled by Democrats. It will break, eventually. The biggest problem for California is that it does not have the traditional private sector option of filing for bankruptcy. States can't do that. (The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution forbids it. The only option, ultimately, will be to sell off some of the state's assets -- buildings, parks, etc. -- and pare back from there.

I threw this question out on this board a while back and got no response, probably because it was at the end of a long e-mail like this. But, I'll try one more time:

What purpose do public sector unions serve?

Historically, unions arose to give workers the ability to collectively bargain against capitalists and large conglomerates. It was a way of evening the bargaining power.

Why is this necessary for public sector workers? They are negotiating with. [b]us[/b]! Citizens are a far cry from the powerful railroads, mining companies, capitalists and conglomerates that originally spawned labor unions.

My solution: Ban all public sector unions. Period. If the voters believe that workers deserve better pay and benefits packages, they can elect politicians who will give them that. There is no need for a union. I'm not naive enough to believe that this will ever happen in my lifetime. But, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Public sector unions cannot solve the problem; public sector unions [i][b]are[/b][/i] the problem. Or, to paraphrase Shakespeare: First, let's kill all the lawyers; then, let's get the unions.

I've known that those two references were going to force you to invest all that time writing an anti-Democratic and anti-union screed, I wouldn't have mentioned them as they were tangential to my post. Are you done discussing health care or are unions just a hot-button topic for you?

I suppose that pointing out that Republicans and Democrats have equal blame for California's political problems but most of the blame actually resides with the initiative system which created an impossible gap between spending and revenues. Voters want programs but don't want to pay for them. Of course, both those "wants" have been shaped by heavy investments by special interests in initiatives they favor.

We have no common ground for the union discussion as my view is that unions are a fact of life so figuring out how to live with them is far effective than either blaming them for everything or hoping they will go away. Poor management results in poor unions whether it's the DMV or United Airlines and we don't have much hope of fixing either.

There's a number of reasons that government is a good career financially but it mostly comes down to government and private pension plans and benefits have historically favored long-service employees and, due to civil service laws created to curb huge abuses in government hiring and firing, there are lots of long service employees. Plus, politicians prefer to give away the future if it avoids pain the present so they tend to sweeten pension benefits to avoid having to address current wage issues. Inflation-adjusted pensions are a sweet, sweet deal. Of course, there is a significant downside to being a government employee in that you have to work for the government which is not generally a very satisfying place to work.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]I'd known that those two references were going to force you to invest all that time writing an anti-Democratic and anti-union screed, I wouldn't have mentioned them as they were tangential to my post. Are you done discussing health care or are unions just a hot-button topic for you?[/QUOTE]You don't see the point that many years ago (30+) unions morphed from organized labor (I. E. Give employees strength in numbers) to organized crime (use labor pool, voting pool, union funds to extort third parties)

[quote=]I suppose that pointing out that Republicans and Democrats have equal blame for California's political problems[/QUOTE]I can point out to you that the sun rises in the West. That doesn't make it so.

[ but most of the blame actually resides with the initiative system which created an impossible gap between spending and revenues. Voters want programs but don't want to pay for them. Of course, both those "wants" have been shaped by heavy investments by special interests in initiatives they favor.

[quote=]Poor management results in poor unions whether it's the DMV or United Airlines and we don't have much hope of fixing either.[/QUOTE]Creating government-made, sanctioned and encouraged anomalies in the labor market results in private industries being destroyed by payments to people who have long since left their employ.

[quote=]There's a number of reasons that government is a good career financially but it mostly comes down to government and private pension plans and benefits have historically favored long-service employees and, due to civil service laws created to curb huge abuses in government hiring and firing, there are lots of long service employees. Plus, politicians prefer to give away the future if it avoids pain the present so they tend to sweeten pension benefits to avoid having to address current wage issues. Inflation-adjusted pensions are a sweet, sweet deal.[/quote]

Exactly, artificially high compensation for the skills required and job performed with no little or no accountability.

[quote=}Of course, there is a significant downside to being a government employee in that you have to work for the government which is not generally a very satisfying place to work.[/QUOTE]The over-compensation helps. Plus, for many govt employees, it is a great place to work. They get paid relatively high wages and have to do little more than they would if they collected welfare.

Maybe those government jobs are not as secure as one thinks.

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/28/news/economy/local_governments_budget_doom.fortune/[/url]

"But sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax (by itself 80% of states' general fund revenue) revenues have fallen off a cliff. As a result, states and municipalities have had to take very drastic measures -- including laying off over 200,000 state and local government employees since June 2009"

The story goes on to say that it's estimated that 900,000 private sector employees are also expected to lose their jobs because of fall in revenues.

I was referring to federal govt jobs. State, muni and other local jobs are subject to the whim of DC and local revenues (tougher for them to steal from citizens than it is for the feds)

Hi Easy:

Yep, I doubt you and I will agree on unions then. It is a hot button issue for me, because they serve no purpose in the public sector, in my opinion, and they are destroying state governments, particularly California. I was hoping you would answer my question as to why they are needed. The only thing you cite is civil service rules designed to "curb huge abuses in government hiring and firing." I'm not quite sure what this means, unless you are referring to patronage. But, of course, this really has nothing to do with unions. Civil service rules can exist entirely apart from unions and, indeed, they began long before government workers were unionized. So, why do you believe public sector unions are necessary? Or, do you just accept them as a fact of life without questioning their utility? That's what most folks have done, which is part of the reason we are where we are today in my opinion.

As to public sector layoffs, there undoubtedly have been some recently with Obama-provided state manna expiring. But, such layoffs pale in comparison to the private sector. For example, between December 2007 and December 2009, the private sector lost more than 7.3 million jobs, yet the number of government jobs actually increased by about 100,000. [url]http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary[/url] So, the 200,000 lost that you cite puts them down by 100,000. That's really telling if relativity matters.

This report cites a wide variety of sources to establish that public sector employees are overcompensated, unproductive, over-pensioned and fully aware that they are working the system at taxpayer expense.

Take, for example, your idea that government work is not particularly satisfactory. You may not have meant to imply it, but the suggestion is that it may take more compensation to attract folks willing to work in this unsatisfying line of work. But, as set forth in the report cited above, if that were true then one would expect to find that the job-quit rate in the public sector approaches or even exceeds that of the private sector. But, it's not so. The job-quit rate is 1/3 of the private sector -- suggesting that public sector employees are very satisfied, whether it's because they're overpaid, not forced to work hard, have job security, can't find a job anywhere else because they're worthless, or all of these.

There's still more, which is just illustrative of my point vis-a-vis California:

* "In 2007 the average annual salary of a California state government employee was $53,958, nearly 32 percent greater than the average private sector worker ($40,991)"

* "In California, even as the state struggled with the recession, plummeting revenues, and record budget deficits, and Gov. Schwarzenegger issued a supposed hiring freeze, the state continued to hire more workers. Incredibly, the state has added over 13,000 employees since the onset of the economic recession in 2008 and continued hiring even during the worst of the recession."

As to public sector workers on the whole:

* "As of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits."

* "Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis illustrate that average state and local government compensation has been increasing at a faster rate than average private sector compensation over the past 30 years."

* "According to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, private-sector employees worked an average of 2,050 hours in 2008, 12 percent more than the 1,825 hours worked by the average public-sector employee."

My point, which I don't think you challenge too much, is that the system for compensating public sector employees is broken. My further point -- and I think you disagree with me here -- is that the biggest culprits are unions and their patrons, which are Democrat lawmakers. You can make a facile statement such as "Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for California's mess," but if you've been paying attention at all here, you know that's not true. Democrats have largely had their way with tax increases, even if Republicans were finally able to put their foot down this last budget -- which still resulted in further "temporary" tax hikes. The Legislature's got to live within its means, and the initiative process is part of that. But, historically, it is Democrats who have been responsible for excessive spending, not Republicans. There just aren't any two ways about it. Dems and their union buddies have done more to destroy California's future than any other party, special interest or initiative, individually or collectively, no pun intended.

I could cite example after example of public sector pension and compensation abuse by individuals. In my line of work, we happen to see a lot of it. And, I don't really blame the individuals for taking advantage of what's available. But, it's a system that has been installed by Democrats and the unions that fund their machine. They have been kicking the can down the road for years. There's nothing Republicans can do about that. Democrats have had the numbers in California for decades. But, the chickens are coming home to roost. Unfortunately, I expect we'll hear a lot more 'Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault' rhetoric when that time comes, especially from Democrats who know better.

By the way, I thought I had talked about health care already. If you think I need to say more, I'm willing. But, I think I'm already boring folks to death as it is.

By the way, you probably already have the impression that I'm a Republican-loving, Democrat-hating monger. That's not quite true. At the federal level, the Republicans had their chance to run a tight ship (2000-2004) yet they utterly blew it. They essentially destroyed the party by thumbing their collective noses at what it was supposed to stand for.

As further evidence, I posted long ago that, if I had voted this last election, it would have been for Obama. I've since posted that this would have been a mistake, given what I now know about him. But, I've got no fixed hatred for Democrats per se other than they planks they traditionally embrace and the dependent-class politics they traditionally play. Obama said he was different. I believed him. I was wrong. I definitely am a fiscal conservative, but I don't always side with Republicans.

Nevertheless, in California, there's no need to have any regard for Republicans. Democrats have controlled the purse strings for decades. It's their mess. There's not really any plausible, straight-faced argument that can be made to the contrary, at least in my opinion.

So you don't hate Democrats, just everything that they stand for?:-)

I doubt there is much correlation between either the political party in control or the presence of unions that is highly correlated with the degree to which public sector salaries, pension benefits, and management are screwed up. Public sector employees have a low quit rate because they value stability and quitting isn't something that they do lightly.

My comment on the downside of public jobs was unrelated to the question of appropriate compensation and benefits. It was more about why I went into the private sector rather than the public sector. My time in the military opened the door to federal service for me early in life but I found it to be a soul-killing environment. Not surprisingly, it's not something unique to government work but I've never regretted my choice.

It happens that I know a lot about California as I lived there most of my life. I could have retired there but even ten years ago it was clear that the state was broken beyond repair. I visit friends and family there frequently and have seen nothing to make me regret my decision to retire elsewhere.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]I doubt there is much correlation between either the political party in control or the presence of unions that is highly correlated with the degree to which public sector salaries, pension benefits, and management are screwed up. [/QUOTE]You might think that, but you might want to look a little closer. Look at traditional red state / blue states and the degree to which their budgets are messed up. Big blue states like California and New York are seriously, seriously messed up. Big red states such as Texas and Arizona are not. There are degrees for all of this. But, by and large, there's your correlation: In traditionally blue states with big Democrat and union machines, the budgets are broken beyond repair. In traditionally red states without union and Democrat control, there are problems, but generally nothing near as bad as the blue state mess.

I commend you on your retirement decision. Things are going to get a lot worse for California before they get better.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%)[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Wild Walleye]If the percentage in poverty is slightly down over the period of time, then, the percentage is down. [/QUOTE]Beyond confusing up from down, what is remarkable is that anyone would actually see these poverty rates as any kind of success or achievement. Even if we call it flat, what that means is we made no progress at all in reducing poverty in the past three decades. We had an economic expansion and created a lot of wealth, but most of it went to the top few percent. That the poverty rates did not improve is an absolute failure.

Of note, poverty rates steadily increased under Bush. The 2008 number was 13.2%.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Among the ways you can go about improving income equality are (1) higher taxes on ordinary income that would discourage over-achievers from working harder and small businesses from taking risks, (2) higher taxes on capital gains and dividends and interest that would reduce savings and investment, and (3) overly generous unemployment benefits. I think there's a strong correlation between "3" and the rate of unemployment. The correlation between measures of income inequality and unemployment would be weaker.[/QUOTE]Historical evidence demonstrates you can implement moderate, targeted tax increases without overly discouraging hard work, risk-taking, investment and economic growth. I agree with your correlation, and I don't support generous unemployment benefits in general. I do think the current benefit extensions make sense at this point in time, but its temporary.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]I think each side accuses the other of extremes. [/QUOTE]I agree!

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Regarding your link, I don't think you get my point. I'm not arguing about whether statistical measures indicate there's more inequality in the US versus, say Europe. I am arguing that the average middle class or lower middle class American is better off than his counterpart in Europe, and I believe statistics of MEDIAN income adjusted for purchasing power support that. Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car (s) air conditioning, etc.[/QUOTE]I agree! (more or less). And if you are content with that metric and see no need to address other issues within the US, you are welcome to support the status quo. Others don't feel the same way.

[QUOTE=Esten]Beyond confusing up from down, what is remarkable is that anyone would actually see these poverty rates as any kind of success or achievement. Even if we call it flat, what that means is we made no progress at all in reducing poverty in the past three decades. We had an economic expansion and created a lot of wealth, but most of it went to the top few percent. That the poverty rates did not improve is an absolute failure.

Of note, poverty rates steadily increased under Bush. The 2008 number was 13.2%.[/QUOTE]Yes, you are correct, the percentage was up a statistically insignificant amount. My error, I was typing too quickly and thinking too slowly. That doesn't change the premise. The striking point is that the rate did not rise during a period of extreme population expansion. When a country's population grows by 42% what to you think the socioeconomic profile of the 42% is? All rich people from other countries? The average rich person, living comfortably in his / her home country was not a likely emigre during this period of time. I wonder why they made that law in AZ? To keep rich Mexicans from coming into their state to help create new jobs and lift the standard of living for the entire state?

[url]http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/29/fbi-wants-to-see-your-google-searches/[/url]

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123][url]http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/29/fbi-wants-to-see-your-google-searches/[/url]

Exon[/QUOTE]Is much easier than you think. I worked on a project designed to do just that. The question is whether or not the "looker" is above the law, or not.

If you have seen movies such as "Enemy of the State" and similar movies and you think "gee, it's a good thing they can't really do that." You're mistaken.

When you take into consideration the charges handed down by the house ethics panel today, this is a great video:

[url]http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/53643&start=2987&end=3062[/url]

What sayeth the gentle gander from California?

John Conyers wife goes to jail for bribery.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/monica-conyers-wife-to-jo_n_494305.html[/url]

There all Crooks.

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123]John Conyers wife go to jail for bribery.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/monica-conyers-wife-to-jo_n_494305.html[/url]

There all Crooks.

Exon[/QUOTE]You do this on purpose, don't you.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]When you take into consideration the charges handed down by the house ethics panel today, this is a great video:

[url]http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/53643&start=2987&end=3062[/url]

What sayeth the gentle gander from California?[/QUOTE]The current ethics charges couldn't happen to a nicer lady. Maxine Waters stands for nothing if not for double standards. The other video that's great to review, which was posted by someone in this thread a while back, is her statements at the hearings on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where she tried to browbeat all Republicans for daring to suggest that the fine people running those GSEs should be questioned in any way, shape or form. She basically inferred that they were racist for attempting any reform because 'if it ain't broke, why the hell are you trying to fix it?' She really is an abomination.

I agree that most of these politicians are crooks or at least are feathering their own nests in ways that are of questionable legality. But, much like the left loves to regale when some conservative politician gets involved in a sex scandal, the holier-than-thou, arrogant, soak-the-rich liberals deserve everything they get and more when they're caught lining their pockets.

The real sad truth is that both Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel could be convicted by their peers for multiple ethics violations, yet they likely would get re-elected by their constituents (anyone remember Marion Berry)

That's the left in America: They will stand on principle until they get caught. The same can frequently be said about right wing politicians, but at least they're not playing sanctimonious, class-based, populist politics, so they're not nearly as grating.

Here's my prediction: Dems will begin to call Republicans racists for not agreeing to go "light" on these two pillars of the Congressional Black Caucus. You watch. They will throw the race card out there when the time comes and they believe it serves their purpose.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]You do this on purpose, don't you.[/QUOTE]Yep, I keep telling everybody, there All CockSuckers.

Exon

[QUOTE=Exon123]Yep, I keep telling everybody, there All CockSuckers.

Exon[/QUOTE]Actually, I meant the egregious grammatical errors, but you point is well taken.:-)

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man] They will throw the race card out there when the time comes and they believe it serves their purpose.[/QUOTE]They are claiming that the House Ethics Panel is racist for going after these two pillars. Considering that Rangel thought that he was so far above the law that he referred himself to the panel for review, I don't think that race played a role, in his case. I bet Duke Cunningham wishes that they had focused on house members of color during his troubles.

Unfortunately, both Rangel and Waters will only get slaps on the wrist, if anything. The best we can hope for is that they are publicly humiliated through the process, since the ruling class (except Republicans like Cunningham) never really get punished.

Many wonder why the economic recovery is struggling. The following was written by someone on a chat site.

The only sector of the economy that can produce long lasting employment to abate the current economic condition is the private sector. Without tax cuts, without investment incentives, and with limited government understanding of how economies work and thrive we are all in for a long period of concern or at least until many on both sides of the aisle are replaced with those who have a business or economic background, running businesses, starting them up, making payrolls and the like.

Whoever wrote this has cut through the bullshit of 'I'm from the government. I'm here to help"

Every attermpt by the government to involve itself in the economy is actually another shovel of dirt digging a deeper grave for our economy.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]The only sector of the economy that can produce long lasting employment to abate the current economic condition is the private sector. Without tax cuts, without investment incentives, and with limited government understanding of how economies work and thrive we are all in for a long period of concern or at least until many on both sides of the aisle are replaced with those who have a business or economic background, running businesses, starting them up, making payrolls and the like.

Whoever wrote this has cut through the bullshit of 'I'm from the government. I'm here to help"[/QUOTE]Big businesses are posting great profits and sitting on record piles of cash. In many cases they are giving large sums to "shareholders" (ie. mostly rich folks) through buybacks and dividends. So arguing more tax cuts for them is laughable.

At the same time, these companies have laid off millions while the banks have limited credit to small business. These are major factors underlying the high unemployment rate. The "uncertainty" argument has some merit but that only goes so far.

So, the people only blaming the government are in fact helping the rich elite by diverting attention away from the problems they cause. That's right where they want you to be.

Small business is different and should get help. The small business bill in Congress now (that is unfortunately getting held up) would provide funds that could be used to leverage up to $300 billion in small business loans. But since government doesn't understand business and can only make things worse, I suppose you believe this bill is a bad idea? LOL.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Every attermpt by the government to involve itself in the economy is actually another shovel of dirt digging a deeper grave for our economy.[/QUOTE]I recall the government recently stepped in and saved the country from another depression. With the bailout and stimulus, markets have recovered significant ground, and we've gone from negative to positive GDP growth which has exceeded that seen following the previous two recessions. Only the ignorant and foolish believe the above quoted statement.

Meant to respond to this earlier.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Esten, yea lets tax the heck out of all those capital gains so we punish all those fat cats. Last time I checked it was investments from retirement funds that had the biggest chunk of the market, [/QUOTE]Do you have data showing what % of dividend-paying stock is owned by retirement funds? I have been having some trouble finding good data on this. When broken out by individuals the data I have found shows the vast majority of ownership by the richest 10%.

In any event, capital gains taxes should be tied to income (inclusive of the capital gains). If income is high then the tax rate should be high. We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to the wealthy. If income is low (often the case for retirees) then a tax break is appropriate.

Tracking Poll Finds Health Reform Law Gaining In Popularity.

[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/June/30/health-reform-tracking-poll.aspx[/url]

[url]http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm[/url]

Esten, did you happen to check the results of Prop C in Missouri? I think it was ¾ of the voters approved the prop which directly refutes the primary premise of ObamaCare – your required to purchase health insurance or be fined (sorry I forgot Obama calls it a "fine" as his attorneys argue it is a TAX in court) for failing to purchase same.

I am always ROTFLMAF as you continue to argue what a great job Obama / Dems in Congress have done to "save" the country. See my earlier post citing Obama & the Democrats claims in 2008 that unemployment would go as high as 8.5% if they did not pass the "Stimulus" package. Guess we would have been better off doing nothing since unemployment went up to 10% after they passed it. Could their numbers be wrong - naw couldn't be.

Just in case you have not noticed, the Obama Administration is not making noises about how the current rate of unemployment and stagnant business growth are the new "normal". Perhaps you missed that.

On a side note, Obama really did a great job punishing the folks who got us into this (I. E. AIG and BOA to name a few) man I bet those guys wimpered all the way to the bank with their multi-million dollar bonus checks paid with bail out money. Nothing like "punishing" failure. Hey, can I get in line for some of that "punishment"?

Many companies are sitting on their cash and or buying back stock in the current environment, they are not willing to start hiring or expansion projects until they know what the tax situation and regulatory environment will be. While you may not approve or agree with their strategy, it is the smart move under the prevailing conditions.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Just in case you have not noticed, the Obama Administration is not making noises about how the current rate of unemployment and stagnant business growth are the new "normal". [/QUOTE]Obama himself is now taking the high ground defending his courageous, bold, decisive destructive agenda by saying "it could be worse."

Virginia (via legal route) and MO (via legislative route) are indicative of the new political reality which is the people aren't going to sit idly by and let Obama, Pelosi and Reid continue to destroy the country. The November elections will be yet another step towards correcting the mistake that the American people made in 2008. Hopefully, the lesson will be learned and the knowledge retained that when you are talking about the most important job in the world, you should be careful with your vote.

[QUOTE=Esten]Tracking Poll Finds Health Reform Law Gaining In Popularity.

[url]http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/June/30/health-reform-tracking-poll.aspx[/url]

[url]http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm[/url][/QUOTE]I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you. They have been dead wrong on healthcare for 10+ years. Here are for polls to contradict Kaiser's findings, including those NeoCons at Pew (that is a joke, BTW).

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html[/url]

Kaiser has been deliberately obfuscating the truth on public opinion regarding healthcare reform for as long as I can remember. For example:

"The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds the public still split on health care reform legislation, with 43 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. However, the poll also finds that majorities of Americans of all political leanings support several provisions in the health reform proposals in Congress and most attribute delays in passing the legislation to political gamesmanship rather than policy disagreements."

The "tie" runs counter to all major polls. However, the wording of the last part of the statement tells it all. From Kaiser's perspective passage is a surety and therefore, the "delays" are but window dressing.