Dems Raid Food Stamps to Pay Off Union Supporters

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Jay regurgitated a piece of propaganda put out by "think tanks" funded by corporate interests and extremely wealthy individuals afflicted by the looter syndrome.

 

bullshit

[prole]

Jay regurgitated a piece of propaganda put out by "think tanks" funded by corporate interests and extremely wealthy individuals afflicted by the looter syndrome.

 

bullshit

 

Jay's created another rigged parlor game from flawed assumptions (the private sector is a better provider of public services) and abstracted buzzwords ("efficiency maximization") designed to play off inchoate angst and fear ("my paycheck's shrinking and my costs are rising, who can I blame?") disingenuously using a carrot (we'll have all this money to spend on other stuff) he knows damn-well will never materialize to further his pet project (union-busting) using a fiscal crisis brought on by the very policies he's been championing for years (never let a crisis go to waste). That's a wrap.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[quote=prole

Jay's created another rigged parlor game from flawed assumptions

 

 

Funny, that's what you and j_b seem to do regularly

[prole]

Please provide examples.

[j_b]

Jay regurgitated a piece of propaganda put out by "think tanks" funded by corporate interests and extremely wealthy individuals afflicted by the looter syndrome.

 

bullshit

 

How is it that you are defending corporate shills who regurgitate "think tank" propaganda paid for by the oligarchy? or is jackass contesting that said think tanks are paid in full by his corporate masters?

[JayB]

OK. Now you've moved on from class warfare (government workers receive lavish benefits and every one of them or they as a class resist any possible suggestion that they should share in the economic downturn), based in incorrect fact (government agencies are not making any real compensation cuts).

 

Thank you.

 

But let's take your "points."

 

There are two separate propositions I've made here. The first is quite concrete and specific. The first is that the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs. My claim is that by not doing so, the state is actually acting counter to the public interest and wasting resources that could be used to fund more urgent public priorities.

 

If you oppose paying public employees only what is necessary to attract and retain enough qualified people to get the government's work done, then you are by definition, not ""using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services..." You are in favor of using public funds to generate a private windfall for public sector employees. That also, by definition, means that you place the private interests of the said employees above whatever alternate purposes those tax revenues could be used for.

 

The second claim is that some functions of government are more essential than others, and deserve a higher priority when it's clear that the economy isn't generating enough resources to sustain all functions of the government at their current level. If you do not believe this is true, then it makes sense to insist that,say, printing documents is an essential function of government that only the public sector can provide, and there are no more critical uses for the funds required to pay for its operations. If you don't believe this, then it makes sense to have a discussion about what should be privatized and what should remain public.

 

1. "the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs..."

 

I guess so, if you think that merely filling chairs should be the goal of any public sector hiring. Personally, I think that in many positions we don't just want people who are "qualified," but actually we want people who are good at their jobs. Maybe you agree with this and have simply assumed a different definition of the word "qualified." If so, I agree with you. When it comes to gardener or bus driver, it may well be the case that government employment pays better than private. When it comes to "professionals," certainly not even close - even accounting for these disgustingly lavish benefits you complain of. I think the idea that we pay these people more than they are worth is just plain wrong, but I'm not an economic or vocational analyst.

 

2. "some functions of government are more essential than others, and deserve a higher priority when it's clear that the economy isn't generating enough resources to sustain all functions of the government at their current level."

 

OK, here too I may just agree with you. I'm not at all convinced that the State government needs to be running liquor stores or the ferry system. Health insurance, though, should absolutely NOT be run by private business. That is an abomination and any argument that the private sector is more efficient here is completely whacked. We KNOW that medicare is more efficient than Prudential and in this example you righties argue that medicare is less humane or driving the doctors out of business or .... but not that it the government run system is less efficient.

 

Since we're going by the numbers here:

 

1. From what I've seen, the data supports your claim that doctors, lawyers, and other folks at the top of the professional ladder make less working for the government than they would in the private sector, even after adjusting for pay and benefits.

 

I still claim that in my regressive fantasy where the highest priories of government - those things that only the government can do - get the highest funding, there'd be more resources available to dedicate to things like paying for judges, public defenders, etc. I still wouldn't pay more than necessary to staff the position with qualified personnel - and I think my definition is the same as yours - but even in that scenario there'd be money to pay for more of them. Ditto for MD's that want to work in public health, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

2. The health insurance issue has been beaten to death, we disagree on that point, and there's a gajillion threads where where I've hashed things out with either you or folks that agree with you here.

 

3. One easy way to save a ton of money at every level of government would be to stop prosecuting and incarcerating sane adults for things that they do to themselves or that consenting adults to one another. Start by decriminalizing marijuana, move on to other drugs, and eventually get to full legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc. Prosecuting people, incarcerating them, seizing their property, and depriving them of their livelihood for things that they do to themselves or with other consenting adults isn't a legitimate function of government in the first place, and in the spirit of grand bargains I'd be more than happy to shift every dollar saved by ceasing all of the above to...funding the pensions and benefits of public sector workers.

 

 

[mattp]

OK. Now you've moved on from class warfare (government workers receive lavish benefits and every one of them or they as a class resist any possible suggestion that they should share in the economic downturn), based in incorrect fact (government agencies are not making any real compensation cuts).

 

Thank you.

 

But let's take your "points."

 

There are two separate propositions I've made here. The first is quite concrete and specific. The first is that the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs. My claim is that by not doing so, the state is actually acting counter to the public interest and wasting resources that could be used to fund more urgent public priorities.

 

If you oppose paying public employees only what is necessary to attract and retain enough qualified people to get the government's work done, then you are by definition, not ""using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services..." You are in favor of using public funds to generate a private windfall for public sector employees. That also, by definition, means that you place the private interests of the said employees above whatever alternate purposes those tax revenues could be used for.

 

The second claim is that some functions of government are more essential than others, and deserve a higher priority when it's clear that the economy isn't generating enough resources to sustain all functions of the government at their current level. If you do not believe this is true, then it makes sense to insist that,say, printing documents is an essential function of government that only the public sector can provide, and there are no more critical uses for the funds required to pay for its operations. If you don't believe this, then it makes sense to have a discussion about what should be privatized and what should remain public.

 

1. "the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs..."

 

I guess so, if you think that merely filling chairs should be the goal of any public sector hiring. Personally, I think that in many positions we don't just want people who are "qualified," but actually we want people who are good at their jobs. Maybe you agree with this and have simply assumed a different definition of the word "qualified." If so, I agree with you. When it comes to gardener or bus driver, it may well be the case that government employment pays better than private. When it comes to "professionals," certainly not even close - even accounting for these disgustingly lavish benefits you complain of. I think the idea that we pay these people more than they are worth is just plain wrong, but I'm not an economic or vocational analyst.

 

2. "some functions of government are more essential than others, and deserve a higher priority when it's clear that the economy isn't generating enough resources to sustain all functions of the government at their current level."

 

OK, here too I may just agree with you. I'm not at all convinced that the State government needs to be running liquor stores or the ferry system. Health insurance, though, should absolutely NOT be run by private business. That is an abomination and any argument that the private sector is more efficient here is completely whacked. We KNOW that medicare is more efficient than Prudential and in this example you righties argue that medicare is less humane or driving the doctors out of business or .... but not that it the government run system is less efficient.

 

Since we're going by the numbers here:

 

1. From what I've seen, the data supports your claim that doctors, lawyers, and other folks at the top of the professional ladder make less working for the government than they would in the private sector, even after adjusting for pay and benefits.

 

I still claim that in my regressive fantasy where the highest priories of government - those things that only the government can do - get the highest funding, there'd be more resources available to dedicate to things like paying for judges, public defenders, etc. I still wouldn't pay more than necessary to staff the position with qualified personnel - and I think my definition is the same as yours - but even in that scenario there'd be money to pay for more of them. Ditto for MD's that want to work in public health, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

2. The health insurance issue has been beaten to death, we disagree on that point, and there's a gajillion threads where where I've hashed things out with either you or folks that agree with you here.

 

3. One easy way to save a ton of money at every level of government would be to stop prosecuting and incarcerating sane adults for things that they do to themselves or that consenting adults to one another. Start by decriminalizing marijuana, move on to other drugs, and eventually get to full legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc. Prosecuting people, incarcerating them, seizing their property, and depriving them of their livelihood for things that they do to themselves or with other consenting adults isn't a legitimate function of government in the first place, and in the spirit of grand bargains I'd be more than happy to shift every dollar saved by ceasing all of the above to...funding the pensions and benefits of public sector workers.

 

 

agreed.

[j_b]

Since we're going by the numbers here:

 

1. From what I've seen, the data supports your claim that doctors, lawyers, and other folks at the top of the professional ladder make less working for the government than they would in the private sector, even after adjusting for pay and benefits.

 

I still claim that in my regressive fantasy where the highest priories of government - those things that only the government can do - get the highest funding, there'd be more resources available to dedicate to things like paying for judges, public defenders, etc. I still wouldn't pay more than necessary to staff the position with qualified personnel - and I think my definition is the same as yours - but even in that scenario there'd be money to pay for more of them. Ditto for MD's that want to work in public health, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

IN your regressive fantasy, the public sector would be run like the private sector and all the money would be sucked by upper management/investors and there would be little left for services provided by teachers, city workers, nurses, etc .. There is nothing as inefficient to provide the public good as an unregulated private sector.

 

2. The health insurance issue has been beaten to death, we disagree on that point, and there's a gajillion threads where where I've hashed things out with either you or folks that agree with you here.

 

just one of the most obvious example of your hypocrisy. Taking the profit factor out of health care is one of the most efficient way to decrease the deficit (or prevent it's blowing up) but instead, here you are, reproaching teachers and nurses their hard earned pensions.

[Fairweather]

Health insurance, though, should absolutely NOT be run by private business. That is an abomination and any argument that the private sector is more efficient here is completely whacked. We KNOW that medicare is more efficient than Prudential and in this example you righties argue that medicare is less humane or driving the doctors out of business or .... but not that it the government run system is less efficient.

 

I suppose claim denial could be considered an "efficiency", but the humanity of Medicare's denial rate should give pause to those on your side of the fence who think single-payer will be some kind of panacea.

 

[mattp]

I don't have any idea what the "denial rate" stands for, Fairweather -- do you? (What types of claims are denied?)

 

Meanwhile, for many years the studies have all shown that people are more satisfied with their medicare insurance program than they are with private insurance.

 

nationaljournal.com, department of health and human services data

[billcoe]

agreed.

 

Welcome to the dark side. LOL!

 

The costs of the Iraq war took us down the down the financial toilet, getting military spending under control should be one of those things which would be looked at first. Hope and change. Hope and change. Maybe the out of control can be looked at after the next election or the one after that once all the same un-important things get re-re-evaluated again. Hey, it's only money!

[Fairweather]

I don't have any idea what "satisfied" stands for. Do you? It's also suspect that your graph is compiled by the very organization that is providing the services. It is kind of amusing that medicaid "customers" are only 51% satisfied with their coverage; but, then again, I guess I'm not happy with every Christmas or birthday gift I receive either...

Edited August 18, 2010 by Fairweather

[j_b]

It's well known that regressives create their own reality. They just reach out to their favorite oligarchy-funded "think tank" that'll spew the "study" to fit their talking points: death panels, systematic denial of science, public workers being responsible for the fiscal crisis, ... ad-continuum fucking nonsense. They aren't called wingnuts for nothing.

[JayB]

Now we're getting somewhere. Please share your definition of the oligarchy, give us the names of the leading members, and perhaps your best guess as to where they hold their secret meetings. Do they also have a special code name that rhymes with "Zilderburg?"

[j_b]

The "conspiracy theory" meme is all you've got to respond to the charge that rich plutocrats and corporations finance at a 100% the Heritage foundation, CATO, AEI, CEI, and countless other propaganda outfits touted as "think tanks" that make up those "studies" that are repeatedly found wanting, distorting the evidence, cherry-picking data, and outright lying?

[prole]

If the government doesn't spend and it all goes south as a result then all you mouthy bastards will be screaming for government spending then.

 

One more time...

 

Though Leery of Washington, Alaska Feasts on Its Dollars

 

PALMER, Alaska — Backed by a blue row of saw-toothed mountain peaks, the Republican state lawmaker Carl Gatto finds himself on a fine roll.

 

Roll it back, he says, roll back this entire socialistic experiment in federal hegemony. Give us control of our land, let us drill and mine, and please don’t let a few belugas get in the way of a perfectly good bridge.

 

“I’ve introduced legislation to roll back the federal government,” he says. “They don’t have solutions; they just have taxes.”

 

And what of the federal stimulus, from which Alaska receives the most money per capita in the nation? Would he reject it?

 

Mr. Gatto, 72 and wiry, smiles and shakes his head: “I’ll give the federal government credit: they sure give us a ton of money. For every $1 we give them in taxes for highways, they give us back $5.76.”

 

He points to a newly graded and federally financed highway, stretching toward distant fir trees. “Man, beautiful, right?”

 

Alaskans tend to live with their contradictions in these recessionary times. No place benefits more from federal largess than this state, where the Republican governor decries “intrusive” Obama administration policies, officials sue to overturn the health care legislation and Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, voted against the stimulus bill.

 

Although its unemployment rate sits at just 7.9 percent, about two percentage points below the national rate, Alaska has received $3,145 per capita in federal stimulus dollars as of May, the most in the nation, according to figures compiled by Pro Publica, an investigative Web site. Nevada, by contrast, has an unemployment rate north of 14 percent and has received $1,034 per capita in recovery aid. Florida’s jobless rate is 11.4 percent, and the state has obtained $914 per capita. --more NYT 8/18/10

[Nitrox]

The "conspiracy theory" meme is all you've got to respond to the charge that rich plutocrats and corporations finance at a 100% the Heritage foundation, CATO, AEI, CEI, and countless other propaganda outfits touted as "think tanks" that make up those "studies" that are repeatedly found wanting, distorting the evidence, cherry-picking data, and outright lying?

 

So no examples then?

 

 

[billcoe]

So no examples then?

Why bother asking? For myself, until he becomes a real person, and not a faceless/nameless flamethrower who appears not to read more than the first 3 or 4 words of others posts, I've giving up reading his stuff. I've tied in with many on this site, and it's been good. Jayb and his lovely wife for instance, and would do so again if he ever wanders back over this way. If JB ever stops ranting and becomes a climber, I'd probably start reading his stuff. Until then: I'm done with the person (I say person as I don't know if jb is a guy or a girl actually). I suspect if he used his real name, he'd be a lot nicer. Prole, who shares a lot of similar views as jb, seems to actually read your entire post before he disagrees. LOL! Furthermore, he posts stuff on occasion that cracks us all up, so he'll still be on the reading list for me.

 

[j_b]

 

Examples of the relationship between heritage, cato, AEI, etc .. and corporations/wealthy donors? It's not a secret and it has been going on for decades. It's all in the open that plutocrats like the Kock brothers, Coors, Scaiffe, etc .. finance these outfits to spew propaganda. Just point your search engine to find how many 10's of millions the billionaires Kock spend on think tanks that happen to justify their nasty politics.

 

here is one article about the Kochs:Two Right-Wing Billionaire Brothers Are Remaking America for Their Own Benefit

[prole]

Marijuana legalization: The last refuge of the (libertarian) scoundrel.

 

Should be good for some of the Juggalo vote...

[j_b]

Why bother asking? For myself, until he becomes a real person, and not a faceless/nameless flamethrower who appears not to read more than the first 3 or 4 words of others posts, I've giving up reading his stuff. I've tied in with many on this site, and it's been good. Jayb and his lovely wife for instance, and would do so again if he ever wanders back over this way. If JB ever stops ranting and becomes a climber, I'd probably start reading his stuff. Until then: I'm done with the person (I say person as I don't know if jb is a guy or a girl actually). I suspect if he used his real name, he'd be a lot nicer. Prole, who shares a lot of similar views as jb, seems to actually read your entire post before he disagrees. LOL! Furthermore, he posts stuff on occasion that cracks us all up, so he'll still be on the reading list for me.

 

billcoe doesn't like it when someone exposes his sleazy attacks on public employees and their unions. Billcoe must think he is being "nice" when he claims that public employees are responsible for the budget deficit and their contracts should be torn up, fuckwit!

[j_b]

Schoolteachers Driving Cadillacs

by Paul Krugman

 

Jonathan Chait Cohn tells us that public-sector employees are the new welfare queens. Quite: any time you try to talk about the fiscal plight of state and local government, you get spittle-flecked denunciations of unions and their crazy pay packages.

 

So, how much truth is there to this? State and local employees are paid more, on average, than private-sector workers — about 13 percent more, according to this analysis by John Schmitt. But as Schmitt shows, that’s an apples and oranges comparison: state and local workers are much better educated and somewhat older than private-sector workers, and once you correct for that the comparison actually seems to go the other way.

 

I think the easy way to think about this is to realize that about half of state and local workers are teachers and academic administrators — which means that they’re college-educated, at minimum. And think about it: how many ambitious young people do you know saying, “My goal in life is to become a high school teacher — that would put me on easy street”?

 

Yes, firefighters and police get pretty generous pay packages; they also pull people from burning buildings.

 

And here’s a point I haven’t seen made: even if you believe that the age-and-education-adjusted calculations are wrong, and public employees do get paid somewhat more than they “should”, how big a deal is that? I went to the Census state and local finance data, and got this picture of the composition of non-federal government spending:

 

A few percent either way in workers’ compensation would not make a big difference to state and local spending. This is a phony issue.

 

Of course, so were the welfare queens.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/schoolteachers-driving-cadillacs/

 

[JayB]

Marijuana legalization: The last refuge of the (libertarian) scoundrel.

 

Should be good for some of the Juggalo vote...

 

Bonus points for being a consistent champion of the supremacy of the state over the individual.

 

 

[JayB]

Schoolteachers Driving Cadillacs

by Paul Krugman

 

Jonathan Chait Cohn tells us that public-sector employees are the new welfare queens. Quite: any time you try to talk about the fiscal plight of state and local government, you get spittle-flecked denunciations of unions and their crazy pay packages.

 

So, how much truth is there to this? State and local employees are paid more, on average, than private-sector workers — about 13 percent more, according to this analysis by John Schmitt. But as Schmitt shows, that’s an apples and oranges comparison: state and local workers are much better educated and somewhat older than private-sector workers, and once you correct for that the comparison actually seems to go the other way.

 

I think the easy way to think about this is to realize that about half of state and local workers are teachers and academic administrators — which means that they’re college-educated, at minimum. And think about it: how many ambitious young people do you know saying, “My goal in life is to become a high school teacher — that would put me on easy street”?

 

Yes, firefighters and police get pretty generous pay packages; they also pull people from burning buildings.

 

And here’s a point I haven’t seen made: even if you believe that the age-and-education-adjusted calculations are wrong, and public employees do get paid somewhat more than they “should”, how big a deal is that? I went to the Census state and local finance data, and got this picture of the composition of non-federal government spending:

 

A few percent either way in workers’ compensation would not make a big difference to state and local spending. This is a phony issue.

 

Of course, so were the welfare queens.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/schoolteachers-driving-cadillacs/

 

Gosh - Washington must be quite an anomaly, since pay and benefits constitute 60% of the state's budget.

 

"State's biggest expense is the hardest one to cut

 

Wages and benefits for teachers and state workers make up 60 percent of the budget."

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011003705_stateworkers07m.html

 

Also interesting that Kulongoski, like Villaraigosa in LA - cleverly disguised himself as a labor advocate for a couple of decades and, in Kulongoski's case - two terms as governor - before peeling off the mask and revealing himself as a member of the regressive oligarchy!

 

"Kulongoski, who won election with strong support from public employee unions, also took aim at public sector wages and benefits.

 

“My message to state and school employees is this: If you don’t want a decade of deficits to turn into a decade of layoffs and wage freezes—work with us to manage the cost of your benefits and keep your pay in line with your counterparts in the private sector,” the governor said.

 

Kulongoski proposed several ways in which to dial back compensation: getting employees to pay the 6 percent pension contribution many public sector entities pay on their behalf; engaging in statewide collective bargaining rather than the current fragmented process; and getting employees to pay more of their healthcare costs — or in some cases, any portion of that expense."

 

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/06/25/kulongoski-throws-bombs-in-final-city-club-address/

[JayB]

Examples of the relationship between heritage, cato, AEI, etc .. and corporations/wealthy donors? It's not a secret and it has been going on for decades. It's all in the open that plutocrats like the Kock brothers, Coors, Scaiffe, etc .. finance these outfits to spew propaganda. Just point your search engine to find how many 10's of millions the billionaires Kock spend on think tanks that happen to justify their nasty politics.

 

here is one article about the Kochs:Two Right-Wing Billionaire Brothers Are Remaking America for Their Own Benefit

 

I'm just a bit surprised that you haven't seen through Soros' charade and exposed him as a double agent for the oligarchy.

 

Kudos for ferreting out the real policy goals that Cato, the AEI, etc are intent on advancing after they cleverly concealed them on their "about" pages.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, The Oligarchy has met its match.