Posts Tagged ‘public sector’

Obama Campaign Falsely Quotes Mitt Romney Saying: ‘We Don’t Need Any More Teachers. We Don’t Need More Any Firefighters.’ YOU LIARS!!!

June 13, 2012

I heard Obama’s top campaign guru TWICE directly quote Mitt Romney as saying, “We don’t need more teachers.  We don’t need more firefighters.”  Here’s one of those:

AXELROD: Governor Romney chose to jump on the word, but what was most interesting is how he reacted to the spirit of the thing, because his statement was we don’t need any more teachers, we don’t need any more firefighters or police. The president is out of touch. Out of touch? We have lost 250,000 teachers in the last 27 — couple of years. Every community in the country is feeling it. It’s bad in the short term for our economy, because those are good middle-class jobs, and it’s bad in the long term for our economy because we’re not going to win and our kids aren’t going to win unless we invest in education.

So I would suggest he’s living on a different planet if he thinks that’s a prescription for a stronger economy.

As soon as Axelrod said that, I knew it was a pure lie from a pure liar.  I knew that there was no way Mitt Romney said, “We don’t need any more teachers.  We don’t need any more firefighters or police.”

For the record, when Axelrod said “Governor Romney chose to jump on the word,” “the word” he was referring to was Barack Obama’s incredibly stupid and incredibly wrong statement that “the private sector’s doing fine.”  And because Barack Obama said an incredibly stupid thing, David Axelrod decided to deceitfully and falsely attribute a bogus remark to Romney so that he could demonize him for the lie that Axelrod fabricated.

This is what Mitt Romney actually said:

Romney said in Iowa that Obama “wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Two very different statements.  There is a rather huge difference between saying “We can’t afford what Obama has already TWICE tried and which the American people have now clearly flatly rejected” and “We don’t need more teachers.”  Romney accurately points out the fact that Barack Obama says we need to do the son of the son of stimulus – yet another massive government spending program that has already twice failed America – and pointed out that Obama justifies expanding government and expanding the (liberal union) government workforce by citing firemen, policemen and teachers.  It’s basically that scam that cities use when they have bloated budgets: you never hear them say, “If you don’t pay more taxes we’ll fire all our bureaucrats!”  Rather they say we’re keeping every single bureaucrat but we’ll fire all the policemen and firemen and teachers and then you’ll be sorry.  And Romney also points out that if you look at Wisconsin, if you look at San Diego, if you look at San Jose – uberliberal places ALL – you will see that the American people are now OVERWHELMINGLY rejecting what Obama is demanding.

In San Jose, fully 70% of the residents voted to cut back pensions that allowed firefighters to retire at the age of 48 with 90% of their salary – which is consistent with California public sector workers.  These benefits DWARF what private sector workers have any chance of ever receiving.

Wisconsin “public workers” get on average $14,500 more than their private sector counterparts with similar qualifications; they receive more than twice the health care benefits than their private sector counterparts, and they get 4.5 times more in pension.

It is frankly immoral.  If the left actually wanted more policemen, firefighters and teachers THEY WOULD CUT THESE UNSUSTAINABLE BENEFITS AND FREE UP FUNDS TO ALLOW GOVERNMENTS TO HIRE MORE POLICEMEN, TEACHERS AND FIREFIGHTERS

As it is, take a look at the unfunded liability of California according to the Los Angeles Times:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

Note to anyone who has a functioning brain cell: we’re bankrupt.  We don’t have the money.  We can’t keep allowing Democrats to give public unions fat contracts in exchange for those public unions giving back the Democrats a kickback in the form of campaign contributions.  Our children will starve and die in the burning streets if we keep doing that.  And I mean that very literally.  The United States of America is going to collapse.  And first there will be riots and then we will descend into complete anarchy.  And our children will very much starve and die in the burning streets.

America’s actual debt is no trivial $16 billion (it was $10 trillion when Obama took office, with George Bush having grown it by $4 trillion over eight years); it is now way, WAY over $200 TRILLION.  And Democrats have saddled us with 99.9 percent of that unpayable debt bomb that is waiting to explode.

I keep trying to warn people.  It’s right out of the Bible.  There is a spirit of delusion on us that is going to kill us just as it has killed other nations before us.  We think we’re fine, that everything is fine, and that we can go on doing what we’ve done before.  One day soon we’re going to collapse – and when that collapse comes it’s going to happen with staggering, stunning speed and it’s going to catch nearly all Americans completely off guard.  Your money will be virtually worthless literally overnight.  And your family is going to suffer horribly in the ensuing chaos.

There’s a line from a song: “You can’t always have what you want.”  That idea is completely foreign to liberals, who believe with Obama that he can slash the size of government and massively expand the size of government at the exact same time.  But under Obama, people are buying the lie that we can have mutually exclusive things that fundamentally contradict one another.  Mitt Romney isn’t saying, “We don’t need any more teachers.”  Mitt Romney is saying, “We can’t afford any more Obamanomics.”

I was watching Neil Cavuto’s program, and a liberal was arguing that not only should the public sector and the unions that give 95% of their campaign contributions to Democrats continue to receive these out-of-control and unsustainable benefits, but private sector workers ought to have them too.  And instead of cutting public sector employee benefits to be more in line with private sector workers, we should instead force every business in America into bankruptcy by forcing them to pay the kind of insane benefits that we’re paying Obama’s government class of elites.  And Cavuto kept repeating versions of “you are completely insane.”

The liberal was basically saying that if you can’t get that square peg to fit into that round hole, you use a bigger government-powered hammer until you force your peg to fit wherever the hell you want it.  Government is God, and our God can do anything He wants.

Cavuto kept asking, “Where are you going to get the money?”  And that dose of reality simply didn’t matter: because liberals are as immune from reality as you can get.  Liberalism is ultimately the incoherent intolerance of reality.  They live in their little world of “isms” and talking points.

David Axelrod is a liar without shame.  And so is the evil president he is pimping for.

Advertisements

Liberals Lie On Public Sector Compensation And The Terrifying Crisis America Faces

March 2, 2011

There’s a rash of liberals out there (liberals being quite comparable to a rashes and other nasty conditions) saying that public sector jobs don’t earn any more than the private sector.

And, of course, that you should feel sorry for those poor government union employees in Wisconsin who are in danger of losing their collective bargaining rights and therefore the ability to hold the public hostage for even higher pay.

But, of course, “lying” and “liberal” is more than just an example of alliteration; the two words are also synonyms for one another.

So How Much Do Public Union Workers Really Make?
By John Lott
Published March 01, 2011
| FoxNews.com

President Obama lashed out at Republicans Monday for having “denigrated or vilified” public union employees. Without collective bargaining and the ability to go on strike, he said we wouldn’t be able to attract “the best and the brightest to public service.” Are public employees simply the best and the brightest? Or are we simply lavishing them with much better employment deals than their private counterparts? 

To measure how attractive a job is, economists study how employees vote with their feet — that is, comparing the rate at which different categories of employees voluntarily quit their jobs. 

Over the last six months, private workers have been 3.4 times more likely to quit their jobs than either state and local or federal workers. Indeed, no private industry comes close to the low “quit rate” for government employees. Manufacturing, which has the lowest rate, still faces twice the quit rate as the government. 

Firms compete to hire workers not just through offering good salaries and benefits, but also through working conditions and hours. Firms that offer comparably better deals not only find they have more potential workers lining up to get a job, but once an applicant gets the job, they will want to keep it. 

Some union supporters claim that this low turnover rate actually demonstrates an efficiency of government. How? Because a low turnover means the government saves money since it doesn’t have to retrain replacement workers. But here is the problem: if the saved retraining costs really outweighed the higher salaries and benefit costs, private companies would also volunteer to pay higher compensation. 

It appears to me that unions generally try to ensure that their workers don’t have to work too hard — with mandatory breaks guaranteed and rigid protections over exactly what kind of jobs workers can be asked to do. That is on top of getting paid much more

Take public school teachers. Over 41 percent of state and local public workers are in education. If state and local government costs are going to be reined in, state governments must deal with. By any measure, the government pays public school teachers much more than non-religious private school ones. During the 2007-08 school year, the Department of Education reports that the average public school teacher’s salary, even without their much more generous benefit package, was $49,630, 37 percent higher than the $36,250 earned by private school teachers

As shown in this figure, using data from the Department of Education, public school teachers continue to earn much more money than their private school counterparts. This goes across the board no matter what their level of experience, level of education, age, race, whether they teach in an elementary or secondary school, or where the schools are located. The smallest difference between public and private teacher salaries exists for those with a Ph.D. (about 13%) and the largest difference appears for those who are black or who work in towns (public school teachers make about 57 or 58 percent more). 

It is easy to see how public school teacher salaries increase simply by being on the job longer. From 2 years to 29 years of experience, public school teacher salaries just keep rising relative to private school teachers — going from earning a 29 percent premium during their second to forth years on the job to 49 percent markup when they have been there for 25 to 29 years

So how do public sector unions get away with this? Simply put, they have a kind of monopoly. Parents pay for public education through their property and other taxes — whether they send their kids to public or private schools

Parents must really believe that the private schools are much better than the public ones to be willing to pay the public school taxes and still pay private school tuition on top of that — effectively paying twice for school. In contrast, private schools that kept paying more and more for teachers would quickly find themselves out of business

With all this money at stake, public unions’ reactions to proposals to weaken their power and make them more like federal workers are understandable. But still there are some surprises. On Sunday, AFL-CIO’s head, Richard Trumka, in a television interview refused repeated attempts to answer questions about whether or not it was innappropriate for union activists to compare Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker to Hilter and other dictators. 

A couple of weeks ago, Obama told leaders of private companies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that they had an obligation to hire more workers regardless of whether it meant they would lose money on hiring them. Alas, this is also his attitude towards public spending. 

We’ve got to either end the public sector union monopolies or they will end America.  That is the bottom line.

We are in a crisis that is so giant that it boggles the imagination.  And the professional left, the Democrat Party, the unions and the mainstream media are all doing everything they can to keep you from knowing that your country is about to implode because of public employee benefits.

Take just ONE state, California.  According to a study done by Stanford on public employee pension liabilities:

The study concluded that the state’s unfunded pension liability has topped half a trillion dollars – six times the present state budget.

Put another way, future California taxpayers are going to be on the hook for more than $500 billion simply to make up the difference between the pensions we’ve promised to today’s state workers and the money we’ve invested to pay for them.

That’s tax money that will have to be shelled out before a nickel is spent on the public services of the future.

Or consider this news:

Big US cities could be squeezed by unfunded public pensions as they and counties face a $574 billion funding gap, a study to be released on Tuesday shows.

The gap at the municipal level would be in addition to $3,000 billion in unfunded liabilities already estimated for state-run pensions, according to research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the University of Rochester.

Basically, while the mainstream media continues to depict public sector union employees as valient stalwarts fighting for the rights of the working class everywhere, what they really are is vindictive eco-terrorists viciously and repeatedly stabbing your children in the eyes and then pissing in your children’s blind and gaping eye sockets.  Because what they are really fighting for isn’t the nonexistent “right of collective bargaining”; what they are fighting for is the “right” to implode America and ensure that your children suffer like no generation of Americans has ever suffered before.

When I say that the Democrat Party which backs this disaster and fights to sustain it until America is a bankrupt banana republic is the party of genuine moral evil and the party of treason, I mean it.

During the next two years, culminating in the 2012 national elections, America has one last chance to survive as a nation.  We either massively elect conservative Republicans who will break the government union stranglehold that even FDR said was “intolerable and unthinkable,” or we go the way of the Dodo bird.

Why Government Unions Are Proof That Democrats Have Become An Inherently Un-American Threat

February 22, 2011

FDR never wanted to see public sector unions.  FDR wrote:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

[Well, that hasn’t really come to pass now, has it?  FDR continues]:

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that ‘under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.'”

Why did FDR say that?

Read this article from The Wall Street Journal and understand the inherent threat of public unions.  And then open your eyes:

It’s now official: In 2009 the number of unionized workers who work for the government surpassed those in the private economy for the first time. This milestone explains a lot about modern American politics, in particular the paradox that union clout with Democrats has increased even as fewer workers belong to unions overall.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that 51.4% of America’s 15.4 million union members, or about 7.91 million workers, were employed by the government in 2009. As recently as 1980, there were more than twice as many private as public union members. But private union membership has continued to decline, even as unions have organized more public employees. The nearby chart shows the historical trend.

[1unions]

Overall unionism keeps declining, however, with the loss of 771,000 union jobs amid last year’s recession. Only one in eight workers (12.3%) now belongs to a union, with private union employment hitting a record low of 7.2% of all jobs, down from 7.6% in 2008. Only one in 13 U.S. workers in the private economy pays union dues. In government, by contrast, the union employee share rose to 37.4% from 36.8% the year before.

In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty. Once a city or state’s workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away.

This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington. Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm’s profits. Now the movement’s main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy’s wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers.

And as union membership has grown in government, so has union clout in pushing politicians (especially but not solely Democrats) for higher wages and benefits. This is why labor chiefs Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO) could order Democrats to exempt unions from ObamaCare’s tax increase on high-cost health insurance plans. To the extent Democrats have become the party of government, they have become ever more beholden to public unions.

The problem for democracy is that this creates a self-reinforcing cycle of higher spending and taxes. The unions help elect politicians, who repay the unions with more pay and benefits and dues-paying members, who in turn help to re-elect those politicians.

The political scientists Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently wrote in the Weekly Standard about the 2006 example of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine shouting to a rally of 10,000 public workers that “We will fight for a fair contract.” Mr. Corzine was supposed to be on the other side of the bargaining table representing taxpayers, not labor.

From time to time, usually requiring a fiscal crisis, middle-class taxpayers in the private economy will revolt enough to check this vicious political cycle. (See Scott Brown.) But sooner or later, the unions regain their political advantage because taxpayers have other concerns while unions have the most to gain or lose.

This is why most Democrats once opposed public-sector unionism. Such 20th-century liberal heroes as New York Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia and Franklin Roosevelt believed fervently in industrial unions. But they believed public employees had a special social obligation and could too easily exploit their monopoly position. How right they were.

As we can see from the desperate economic and fiscal woes of California, New Jersey, New York and other states with dominant public unions, this has become a major problem for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance. It may be the single biggest problem. The agenda for American political reform needs to include the breaking of public unionism’s power to capture an ever-larger share of private income.

The public sector unions and their power over the people was recognized to be an un-American and an inherent danger even by advocates of unions such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  We have only to look at Wisconsin and at what fascistic Democrats such as Community Organizer in Chief Barack Obama are doing in that state and others to see how right past Democrats like FDR were.

The things about economics and the economy that FDR believed in were wrong.  They were proven wrong in history.  That’s why the industrial unions that he adored have nearly vanished; they simply create too many impediments to a strong economy – particularly in today’s competition with countries like China that do not have “a union problem.”  And so Americans in our free market system decided long ago that it was better to have an actual job than it was to belong to a union and wonder why they had no jobs.

Modern Democrats, in desperation, turned to the very thing that they saw as an inherent un-American threat in the past.  They have to be hypocrites and liars because they have abandoned the very nature of their previous beliefs about the nature of the economy in a democracy.  Now public unions – once rightly an anathema – have become the foundation of their strength.  Big Union money constitutes more than TEN TIMES any Republican special interest money; and it obviously comes overwhelmingly from the public sector unions that FDR warned us about.

And in doing so, the Democrat Party has become an un-American and inherent threat themselves.

Jesus’ words in Luke 22:25 sum up Democrats and unions so well today: “Jesus said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.'”  Because liberals and unions literally take our money from our children and then tell us they’re doing it for our own good.  And the Democrats who take and take and take from us while calling themselves our “benefactors” today is hardly anything new.  And hardly anything Jesus approved of.