So, compared to the private sector....
UPDATE: It seems that I'm not the only one asking this situation:
I think a threshold or tipping point exists in the ratio between the political power of those who pay taxes and those who consume taxes directly...
I think California has passed that point. [h/t Instapundit] Tax consumers now control the state government and can vote themselves almost any level of personal income and benefits they wish while taxpayers cannot muster the political capital to defend themselves...
...This is the condition that California and other states with powerful public-sector unions find themselves in. California has ~2.3 million unionized government workers and ~18.6 million civilians. With so many people organized with a laser-like focus on increasing taxes and spending, the private working citizens of California find it nearly impossible to prevent government workers from voting their own paychecks.
...As far as the state government is concerned, people in the private sector work merely so that they can be taxed for the benefit of the tax consumers.
It also happens at the local level, too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
-President Barack Obama, 1/20/09
"...or whether it works...."; the question is, works for whom?
For the time being, I'm going to leave off "whether it helps..." for another discussion, for that will be yet another large part of the question of "what is the proper role of government?". That said, with the meltdown of the economy, the private sector has been taking it on the chin, big time. Public sector? Generally, not too bad - yet! Or ever (with a relatively few number of exceptions). The public sector retirees, unfortuntately, are the ones that will be taking next taking it in the keester as the value of the stock market has plunged and shysters like Madoff just up and stole it.
CA, with the biggest budget deficit of all the states (good going, Governator!) seems to be putting itself ahead of the people it serves. From Betsy's Page:
California: government for the benefit of more government
Chris Reed reports on the miserable state of California's economy. He notes that the Democrats who totally control the legislature have been slanting programs away from helping the poor but towards protecting government employees.
Toward this end, Democratic leaders of the California Senate and Assembly agreed in closed-door negotiations with Schwarzenegger to cuts in virtually every social services, health and welfare program in the state...
...But the cooperation ended when Schwarzenegger took his everyone-must-share-the-pain thesis to its logical conclusion. To ease the state's cash crunch, he announced plans to have state employees take off two unpaid furlough days a month beginning Feb. 1.
Leading Democratic officeholders -- and several likely 2010 gubernatorial candidates, including Attorney General Jerry Brown -- immediately engaged in an impromptu contest to determine who could denounce the proposal with the most vigor. Treasurer Bill Lockyer was typical, expressing outrage that the governor would "impose such a hardship on the backs of our employees." Lockyer and other Democrats elected to statewide office said they would refuse to enforce the furlough plan with their own staffs.
Sure, putting it on the back of those that pay the bill is fine....but not those who make up that load?
After all - when did the word "fair" mean "only some" except, it seems, in the world of government workers. If taxpayers have to cut back their lifestyles due to increased taxes, why cannot taxpayer funded employees slip a hole or two in the belt as well?
Medical checkups for poor kids can be halved. Help for the developmentally disabled can be reduced. Job training for inner-city youths can be suspended. But when it comes to cutting pay or benefits for a highly compensated state work force, Democratic officeholders not only draw the line; they express horror at the very thought...
...What was that again about Democrats being the best friend of the disadvantaged?...
...The poor and needy? They're helpful political props to be used and discarded as needed -- no more and no less.
It's not just there in LA-LA land of the Left. It happens here on the Right Coast as well even within our small state. From the local Citizen:
COLA raise applies to all county employees under proposed budget
With at least one exception, all Belknap County employees are to be paid a cost-of-living adjustment of 5.2 percent in the proposed budget.
OK private sector workers, ask yourselves:
- What kind of pay raise did you get this year - anything close to 5.2%?
- Has your company laid off any of your co-workers? Seen any news of similar numbers of government workers?
The article continues:
In addition, each county employee is entitled to up to a three percent merit pay increase on that individual employee's anniversary date with the exception of elected officials.
So, 5.2 + 3 = 8.2% raise this year for the County's best. Now, I have no problem with good people getting rewarded. But in this era of economic downturn, should those in government receive pay raises far above what those in the private sector (that pay those raises) receive?
During the last few budget seasons, I kept hearing "Oh, if we raise the cost of healthcare to employees with smaller raises, it will be like a pay cut!"
I'm sure that many in the private sector, upon hearing that, are mouthing the word "yeah? So?" as we look at our paychecks and think "who is going to make our checks whole, eh?". Especially when more and more goes to bigger and bigger government...
