Dems Raid Food Stamps to Pay Off Union Supporters

[prole]

 

Funny, there was never any room for debate when implementing the policies that brought the crisis about either.

 

[video:youtube]

[JayB]

The only cuts that I'm aware of amounted to a handful of furlough days that will apparently be at least partially paid back later via some bureaucratic maneuver like extra paid vacation or something like that...

 

Your dream is coming true, Jay. There have been hiring freezes and budget cuts imposed on agencies across the board for the last year and a half or so, maybe longer. The demands on these agencies haven't gone down, though, so salaried workers are working uncompensated overtime and temporary employees that are not entitled to benefits are doing work that used to be performed by career employees. You wouldn't be "aware" of it, though, because the State agencies are largely run by dedicated people who are struggling to do their jobs, and they are not busy spewing a bunch of political hoo hah such as what you have apparently been reading.

 

My dream is a public sector that delivers services that only the government can provide as efficiently as possible.

 

We're a long way from that point, and if I had to place a bet, I'd wager that what we'll see at the tail end of this crisis is zero change to the current cost structure and annual cost-growth trajectory, higher taxes, and fewer services delivered to those who need them because public sector unions resist any changes to the existing system of pay and benefits that they enjoy. That sounds way more like your fantasy than mine.

 

When and if we reach a point where public sector employees have all converted to defined contribution plans, their health benefits are no better than the private sector average and they shoulder the same percentage of the cost, and the government is focused on doing the jobs that only it can do then we'll be much closer my fantasy than yours.

 

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc and yet I'm the "regressive" here - while folks who think that we should cut things like welfare and Medicaid before even considering things like getting rid of the unionized state printing shop or taking the "draconian" step of converting state employees to 401(K) type retirement plans that the rest of us make do with pat themselves on the back as selfless champions of the public interest.

 

 

[Fairweather]

 

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc and yet I'm the "regressive" here - while folks who think that we should cut things like welfare and Medicaid before even considering things like getting rid of the unionized state printing shop or taking the "draconian" step of converting state employees to 401(K) type retirement plans that the rest of us make do with pat themselves on the back as selfless champions of the public interest.

 

 

Slam dunk.

[j_b]

There is no economic system in which the rate of government spending can exceed the rate at which the underlying economy grows indefinitely. No matter what the system, at some point the economic output is no longer sufficient to support the cost structure of the said government. We are at that point. There is no longer any room for debate.

 

if you were really concerned about the deficit you'd discuss the several trillions dollars committed for wars of choice that you cheered, the huge corporate subsidies for entrenched interest like big oil, the destructive practices of the financial sector, the over-taxation of income compared to the under-taxation of capital, etc .. but instead, we get more of the anti-employee drivel that justified the catastrophic policies of the last 30 years. You and your anti-living wage policies have no credibility whatsoever.

[j_b]

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc and yet I'm the "regressive" here - while folks who think that we should cut things like welfare and Medicaid before even considering things like getting rid of the unionized state printing shop or taking the "draconian" step of converting state employees to 401(K) type retirement plans that the rest of us make do with pat themselves on the back as selfless champions of the public interest.

 

 

Slam dunk.

 

Check out the regressive demagogues trying to blame the financial crisis on public sector employees, while they ignore their catastrophic policies that led us where we are today. In modern conservative propaganda, public employees are the equivalent of Reagan's mythical welfare queens that were then blamed for government deficits. Nothing ever changes with the looters of public coffers.

[prole]

 

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc and yet I'm the "regressive" here - while folks who think that we should cut things like welfare and Medicaid before even considering things like getting rid of the unionized state printing shop or taking the "draconian" step of converting state employees to 401(K) type retirement plans that the rest of us make do with pat themselves on the back as selfless champions of the public interest.

 

 

Slam dunk.

 

 

Given your personal batting average of .000 on every issue you've ever posted on here, "slam dunk" sounds just about right.

 

 

[AlpineK]

With all the savings from Jay's plan we can have a, "justified," war with both Iran and North Korea.

 

This will be a big boost to corporations since the Defense Department has modernized and outsourced most of the military.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

With all the savings from Jay's plan we can have a, "justified," war with both Iran and North Korea.

 

This will be a big boost to corporations since the Defense Department has modernized and outsourced most of the military.

 

 

good thing you voted BHO in to get us out of our other wars!

[prole]

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc

 

Yes of course you're concerned with all these things, always have been. They always seem to be just out of reach in your narratives. Interesting that time after time it is crucial that you appeal to the idea these things in order to sell an argument that you're well aware is entirely incompatible with them in practice. Weird place you dwell in. Get help.

[JayB]

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc and yet I'm the "regressive" here - while folks who think that we should cut things like welfare and Medicaid before even considering things like getting rid of the unionized state printing shop or taking the "draconian" step of converting state employees to 401(K) type retirement plans that the rest of us make do with pat themselves on the back as selfless champions of the public interest.

 

 

Slam dunk.

 

Check out the regressive demagogues trying to blame the financial crisis on public sector employees, while they ignore their catastrophic policies that led us where we are today. In modern conservative propaganda, public employees are the equivalent of Reagan's mythical welfare queens that were then blamed for government deficits. Nothing ever changes with the looters of public coffers.

 

 

Just for the sake of argument - let's pretend that all of your claims are true. I am a regressive cheerleader for the looters of the public coffers, etc, etc, etc.

 

Having done that - let's discuss why you believe that a government that delivers services that only the public sector can provide, and does so as efficiently as possible is contrary to the public interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc

 

Yes of course you're concerned with all these things, always have been. They always seem to be just out of reach in your narratives. Interesting that time after time it is crucial that you appeal to the idea these things in order to sell an argument that you're well aware is entirely incompatible with them in practice. Weird place you dwell in. Get help.

 

See above.

[Fairweather]

You and your anti-living wage policies have no credibility whatsoever.

 

...if only the average public-sector employee earned a mere "living wage" and was given only "average benefits". But then, in any event, I'm not really sure what an unemployed sloth like you is so concerned about.

[AlpineK]

With all the savings from Jay's plan we can have a, "justified," war with both Iran and North Korea.

 

This will be a big boost to corporations since the Defense Department has modernized and outsourced most of the military.

 

 

good thing you voted BHO in to get us out of our other wars!

 

Four simultaneous wars are better than two.

[mattp]

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc and yet I'm the "regressive" here - while folks who think that we should cut things like welfare and Medicaid before even considering things like getting rid of the unionized state printing shop or taking the "draconian" step of converting state employees to 401(K) type retirement plans that the rest of us make do with pat themselves on the back as selfless champions of the public interest.

 

Maybe I missed something, Jay, but I think you may be making this stuff up. Maybe you relish in class welfare and all, but seriously: did some State worker take away your binky when you were little?

[Fairweather]

did some State worker take away your binky when you were little?

 

It's quite possible. After all, they're more than willing to take food stamps away from the poor in order to avoid the horror of contributing so much as a dime to their medical premiums--or giving up that boat/RV combo they've had parked in the driveway for years.

[prole]

Wait, so you're for the poor now? You're for food stamps? Jay's for environmental regulation and public health care? Breathtaking. You guys should get your own Fox segment.

[billcoe]

let's discuss why you believe that a government that delivers services that only the public sector can provide, and does so as efficiently as possible is contrary to the public interest.

 

I KNOW, LETS JUST DO PERSONAL ATTACKS SINCE NO ONE HAS ANY ANSWER FOR THIS

[billcoe]

Did I say that out loud? Opps.

[billcoe]

if you were really concerned about the deficit you'd discuss the several trillions dollars committed for wars of choice that you cheered....

 

Bet you some serious money that you can't find one post of his "cheering" the wars.....

[j_b]

Scapegoating public employees is certainly not the solution to the fiscal crisis created by unfettered capitalism, which has been said numerous times so quit your bullshit about not getting an answer.

[j_b]

if you were really concerned about the deficit you'd discuss the several trillions dollars committed for wars of choice that you cheered....

 

Bet you some serious money that you can't find one post of his "cheering" the wars.....

 

Well, let's hear JayB saying he didn't cheer for these wars. That ought to be funny. Plenty of people have been here long enough to remember well where he stood, throughout Bush's 2 terms may I add.

[j_b]

The Public Pension Outrage and Alan Greenspan's Pension

 

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

 

In recent weeks, there has been a serious effort by the conservatives and even many centrists to whip up anger at public sector workers over their pensions. The basic story is that public sector workers get better pensions on average than their private sector counterparts. At the same time, most state and local pension funds have large shortfalls, implying that additional government revenue will be needed to keep them solvent.

 

This is supposed to make people really angry at public sector workers. The right-wing noise factory has been whipping up the hostility at public employees, sensing that they may have another ACORN on their hands. A New York Times columnist even called on retired public employees to give back pensions for which they worked and have solid legal claims.

 

We should recognize the attack on public sector workers for what it is: a sleazy case of scapegoating that it is intended to divert people's attention from the real villains in this economy, the Wall Street boys and the inept economic policymakers who took the economy to ruin and seem intent on leaving it there.

 

The basic facts are straightforward. Adjusting for education and experience, public sector workers actually get paid slightly less on average than their counterparts in the private sector. It is likely that the lower pay is largely or fully offset by a better benefit package, but it is likely that the difference in benefit packages between public and private sector workers is not as large as it may seem.

 

First, it is important to realize that public sector workers are far more likely to have a college or advanced degree than the population as a whole. While most workers have little by way of a defined benefit or defined contribution pension, most workers with college or advanced degrees can count on being entitled to at least a modest pension income in retirement.

 

Second, many public sector workers are not covered by Social Security. This means that whatever they get from a government pension will be the bulk of their retirement income; it will not be a supplement to their Social Security benefits. With this in mind, the $22,000 pension that an average retired public employer received in 2007 hardly seems excessive.

 

This doesn't mean that there are not some workers who game the system and some categories of workers who may not get too much. (Firefighters and police tend to do best. Of course, these people regularly risk their lives on the job during their working years.) In short, the idea that we have a whole class of public employees enjoying plush retirements is nonsense that can be readily dismissed with a quick look at the data.

 

So, let's get our eye on the ball. Fifteen million people are not out of work because of generous public employee pensions. Nor is this the reason that millions of homeowners are underwater in their mortgages and facing the loss of their home. In fact, if we cut all public employee pensions in half tomorrow, it would not create a single job or save anyone's house.

 

The reason that millions of people are suffering is a combination of Wall Street greed and incredible economic mismanagement. As we know, the Wall Street boys are back on their feet, with profits and bonuses again at record levels, thanks to the trillions of dollars in bailout money handed to them by the government in the fall of 2008. If people want to be angry at someone, the multi-million dollar bonuses going to hotshot traders at Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan might be a better target than a retired school teacher's $3,000 a month pension.

 

The other appropriate target for the public's anger is the people running economic policy, who failed to prevent this entirely preventable disaster. While there are many people who should be unemployed for this colossal failure (none are), the culprit in chief is Alan Greenspan, arguably the worst central banker of all time. He insisted that everything was just fine even as the housing bubble expanded in size to more than $8 trillion at its peak. Did he think the bubble would just keep expanding forever or did he really believe that the economy could lose $8 trillion in wealth without any serious fallout?

 

This is where we can talk about public pensions. While Mr. Greenspan has retired as Fed chairman and, therefore, cannot be fired, by my calculations he gets something like $160,000 a year as a pension from the government. There is probably no one less deserving of their pension than Mr. Greenspan. If there is any retired public employee in the country who should be returning a pension, it is Mr. Greenspan.

 

What do you say, Mr. Chairman?

 

http://www.truth-out.org/the-public-pension-outrage-and-alan-greenspans-pension62358

[JayB]

The ironic thing about my fantasy is that there'd be more resources available to pay for things like public defenders, public health, the enforcement of environmental regulations, Medicaid, etc and yet I'm the "regressive" here - while folks who think that we should cut things like welfare and Medicaid before even considering things like getting rid of the unionized state printing shop or taking the "draconian" step of converting state employees to 401(K) type retirement plans that the rest of us make do with pat themselves on the back as selfless champions of the public interest.

 

Maybe I missed something, Jay, but I think you may be making this stuff up. Maybe you relish in class welfare and all, but seriously: did some State worker take away your binky when you were little?

 

I wish I was making it all up, Matt. I'm also not sure how arguing that the state should use tax revenues as efficiently as possible and focus its efforts on delivering the services that only the public sector can provide constitutes an uncritical hostility towards public sector workers in particular or the government in general.

 

Even if you believe that providing, say, ferry service across the Sound is an essential service that only the public sector can provide - it's still not clear to me how it would be contrary to the public interest to reduce the amount of money that it costs to deliver it. If its possible to reduce the amount of money that the state spends to deliver this service to the public, how would it harm the public to do so?

 

Is it really controversial to argue that a suite of wages, benefits, and working conditions that attracts hundreds of applicants for every opening is higher than necessary to staff the positions with qualified personnel? How does paying more than necessary to staff these positions benefit the public?

 

I'd be quite happy to have that discussion, and extend it to whether or not operating a ferry system, running liquor stores, janitorial services, landscaping services, running a print shop, etc, etc, etc constitute services that only the public sector can provide, and should have a claim on tax revenues that is as high as funding the public defender's office, et, etc.

 

 

 

[JayB]

Wait, so you're for the poor now? You're for food stamps? Jay's for environmental regulation and public health care? Breathtaking. You guys should get your own Fox segment.

 

I'll just keep repeating as necessary. I'm for using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services in those domains where only the public sector can deliver them.

 

That includes law enforcement, which includes environmental laws, zoning laws, workplace safety laws. etc. Tending the flowers next to the capitol building, not so much.

 

Under my "fantasy." there'd be more money to pay for them, and more people doing them, since the state would offer only the compensation necessary to insure that the positions were staffed with qualified individuals, and those that proved themselves incapable of doing so would be fired immediately.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Wait, so you're for the poor now? You're for food stamps? Jay's for environmental regulation and public health care? Breathtaking. You guys should get your own Fox segment.

 

I'll just keep repeating as necessary. I'm for using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services in those domains where only the public sector can deliver them.

 

That includes law enforcement, which includes environmental laws, zoning laws, workplace safety laws. etc. Tending the flowers next to the capitol building, not so much.

 

Under my "fantasy." there'd be more money to pay for them, and more people doing them, since the state would offer only the compensation necessary to insure that the positions were staffed with qualified individuals, and those that proved themselves incapable of doing so would be fired immediately.

 

Queuing up Prole's next dodge and weave, substanceless "answer"...