Forget about the too-big-to-fail banks: the real economic menace comes from the officer directing traffic downtown. That's the message of yesterday's preposterous Wall Street Journal editorial arguing that public employees - and their unions - "may be the single biggest problem" for the nation's economy. It's part of a mounting conservative effort to direct populist rage against public sector workers and build political will to slash public services, prevent tax increases on the wealthy, and deflect attention from the real causes of our economic decline. After all, why regulate risk-taking bankers when you can stick it to the guy who picks up the trash?
Conservatives' crusade against public employees is decades old, but it's received fresh momentum now that the recession is causing tax shortfalls that have strained public budgets. And the latest impetus comes from a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report finding that a slim majority of the nation's union members now work in the public sector.
The reasons for the shift in union membership are clear: for years private sector employers have been permitted to wage vicious anti-union campaigns whenever their employees dared to organize. Public employers were less likely to violate their employees' rights on the job, so public workplaces were organized more quickly. More recently, the economic downturn hit the most heavily-unionized sectors of the private economy, from construction to the auto industry, particularly hard. Private sector union members lost their jobs. Yet to the extent that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act succeeded in preserving vital public services, many of the teachers, bus drivers, and police officers American communities rely on have so far remained at their posts. That's good news if you care about safe streets and educating the next generation. It's also good for the private sector: when public employees spend their paychecks local stores and services get much-needed business. But if conservatives have their way, more public servants will be in the unemployment line before long.
As if it weren't bad enough that public employees are working, they have the effrontery to get paid for it, too. In an interview with ABC's The Week Senator-elect Scott Brown denounced the "lavish pay and benefit packages [that] have unfortunately become a way of life for public employees." But we're not talking about the Goldman Sachs bonus pool here (although the bailed out bankers also owe their jobs to the taxpayers - and have produced far less of public value in exchange). Instead, conservatives have railed against local, state, and federal employees who earn the very middle-class standard of living all working people are striving to get and hold onto. Rather than being outraged that a public employee earns a living wage, we should ask why more private sector workers don't. Rather than denouncing the public employee pensions that allow firefighters to retire with dignity, we should be asking why we aren't all guaranteed decent provisions in old age after a lifetime of hard work.
Like the folks at the Heritage Foundation, I also find it troubling that the majority of union members now work for the government. But the problem isn't that the nurse at the public hospital is somehow getting "bloated" with my tax dollars. Instead, it's that private companies continue to successfully fight so many of their own employees' efforts to unionize for better pay and benefits. We can't have a middle class rooted exclusively in the public sector workforce: the only sustainable economy is one in which good jobs are within the reach of far more Americans.
While we're fighting for those good jobs, let's remember what really caused the economic collapse: irresponsible lenders and lax regulators drove an unsustainable housing bubble; when it popped, the economy plunged and tax revenue from property, payroll and business taxes declined. As a result of falling revenue, states, cities and the federal government struggled to balance their budgets. Many state and local governments have cut public services as a consequence. But we shouldn't pretend the neighborhood librarian is the one to blame for it.
Follow Amy Traub on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AmyTraubDMI
How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap
Closing the Wealth Gap | P.J. O'Rourke | Cato Institute: Speeches
Why is the 'wealth gap' a bad thing? - Answer Desk- msnbc.com
All they need to do is start listing the current packages of bank execs. Lloyd Bankfiend TOOK A PAY CUT to JUST $9 million a year—ONLY what the average teacher or postal worker would make over about TWO HUNDRED YEARS!!!
This is obscene. What future do we have as a country if we can't recruit the best people to teach our children because the pay is too low, yet we continue to aggregate UNIMAGINABLE wealth in a handful of executives?
I'll answer, a country that mirrors Europe during the Monarchies. A country where the handful of rich forge furniture and teacups out of gold, a lucky few get to work for them and the rest are living in abject poverty.
Early in Obama's campaign, republicans were nervous about a new re-organization of wealth, and nervous that there might be a new spotlight on the rich, as the underclass organized and paid attention for a short time. So the GOP screamed about it, tried quickly to label it, and whined that we as a nation should be wary of class warfare. Well, Obama calmed their fears, as he moved to the center-right, fired community organizers on his staff which fell into back press, talked about religion, and talked about middle ground with conservatives.
Problem is....if you don't create your own memes....the other side will. They organized teabaggers to assault the government and liberal "elite," were successful in blaming the housing crisis on minorities wanting loans for homes, and now you have Brown, the nerve of him, using the word "lavish" to describe middle class wages. And he'll get away with it, because Dems allowed Repubs to lay the foundation for that kind of nonsense talk.
Dems act like they've never been in politics before.
Hey everyone I am one of those I am unionized but my pay and benefit package is hardly lavish
this is LIES LIES LIES LiES!!!!!!!!!!!!
What they don't tell you is that often the retirement plan is IN LIEU of social security, in those instances they pay into their pension fund NOT into social security, IT IS NOT IN ADDITION TO IT , IT IS IN LIEU OF IT!!!!!
Oh yeah Scott Brown I'm complaining of your GENEROUS SENATOR'S BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION, but your silence on this is DEAFINING!!!!!!
Everybody who has ever been in the government knows that govt officials are paid well and have three things that the private sector folks rarely if ever have: Pensions, job security and good (and often great) health care.
I know some of the significant others of officials whine about how they don't get paid a lot and that their work is thankless, etc etc. It just isn't true. I worked in the private sector (albeit as a lowly bellman) for five years, and it was thankless, poorly paid and of course I always had to be on my toes, literally, work weekends etc to hold onto my job.
Did it ever occur to anyone that offering good benefits, job security etc might attract a lot of immigrant and other talent to the private sector? It doesn't seem to be a problem for Germany.
I agree that it is not fair that the people that produce so much have virtually no job security, meager pensions, poor or no health care at all compared to government employees with their ample vacation time, job security, comfortable pensions, good working conditions etc. If anything, it should be the other way around, and private sector employees should receive better health care etc than the government employees who just basically spend tax dollars and provide services that vary widely in quality and yes are often poor.
The major problem in the US is the unfair income distribution and tax laws where less than 20% of the population owns or controls over 80% of the wealth. The middle class is, and has been, under assault and is disappearing while the concentration of wealth at the top increases.
If government needs more money, no use taxing the poor, they don't have any money. No use looking at the middle class, they are maxed out and disappearing. If you want money, its all located at the top and is where you will find it. The good news is that the give-away to the rich Bush tax custs are set to expire in 2010.
50% increases in pay during the last 4 years of service with retirements of 90% of working salary seem to be the choice for favored few.
It is time for the big guys to get a haircut. Start with the pols then work the rot out of the system.
Predictions on how long before i get unjustly accused of being bought off by Big Business? I predict about two seconds. I have never been paid by any one from big Business.
ultimately the difference in support is the result of a philosophical divide that runs rather deep and will never likely be reconciled.
Yes, please, lecture me on how I should be grateful for giving money to these HARD-working folks who never miss a day of work (except for their 22 holidays and the frequent snow day) and then collect 6-figure payouts on accured vacation time at the end of their tenure on top of an until-you-die pension and sweet health care package (that is, if they can work that oh-so-hard job until 55). You can lecture me about this when you pay over $12K in property taxes for a house assessed at $197,000. That's the equivalent of buying a used car every year. Ya get it now? PLEASE, next time do your research on the state of N.J. That's all I ask. Thanks.
And paying for schools in your community is part of living in a decent community with decent, educated people. It doesn't matter if you have children or not, you enjoy the benefits of living in a community of people who've received a good education from public schools.
Problems
1) ridiculously generous retirement benefits based on a worker's last year salary (you mentioned this issue). The retirement number is artificially increased by overtime and vacation time.
2) public officials holding multiple high paying positions at one time
3) Too many small municipalities that leads to duplication of services
Not a problem
1) Teachers and other workers making a decent living wage.
Read Saprano State
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3262011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-paige/americas-only-growth-indu_b_447343.html?show_comment_id=39396844#comment_39396844