The Democrat Caused Pension Bomb About to Destroy Our States

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

The Democrat Caused Pension Bomb About to Destroy Our States

Written By : Warner Todd Huston

A few weeks ago I wrote that unions have driven every state budget into a hole from which it isn’t likely the states can easily dig themselves out. I did not at that time reference the Pew report on the pensions mess and I want to revisit it here.

On April 5, I said, “The worst mess that states are in is because government unions have been handed luxurious and unsustainable pensions and healthcare plans by those very Democrat politicians that unions have paid off to do so. Again all at the expense of the suffering taxpayers.” The Pew report shores this up thoroughly.

In fact, the Pew report from early April 2010 even understates the problem, not because of any bias but because the stats that they used were taken from stats assembled in 2008 because that was the last year where full records had been compiled. Further, we must remember that these stats also came before the market crash ushered in during the age of Obama.

As LaborUnionReport.com notes, “For example, we know that New Jersey’s pension is now underfunded by $54 billion dollars, as opposed to the $34.4 billion when Pew published its report.” (For more data click here)

All this has occurred because government unions have given millions to Democrats so that Democrats can write union-friendly laws and give union members outsized and unearned benefits with payscales higher than anyone’s in the private sector. Then, when Democrats follow through with their union payoffs, unions give even more to the politicians for even more favors. It is a never-ending circle of favors and payoffs to each other in an incestuous system of which the voters have no influence.

As Pew said, “Far too many states are not responsibly managing the bill for their employees’ retirement.” That is an understatement.

Jeff Dunetz said it well drilling the argument down to Wisconsin: “Unions have been claiming that Wisconsin was trying to break the unions. What this pension data shows is that it is the Unions who will be breaking the states.” His point works in every state.

This is a destructive, anti-American cycle that needs to be stopped. Remember, government unions never existed until about 1958. So they have not always been around. In fact, even the left’s patron saint, FDR, was wholly against government unions.

Government unions have been a destructive and failed experiment. They need now to be eliminated.

Anonymous

You mean collective bargaining didn’t officially exist till 1958 when New York institutionalized it after strikes. AFSCME was started in 1936 though really the public workers unions starts in Wisconsin in 1932.

Frankly I find union lobbying no better or worse than corporate lobbying and neither are any more pro or anti-american than the other when you consider it’s just a bank account trading favors with a politician in order to improve conditions for their specific self-interest.

Certainly the unions need to change but the question I have is this: If we get rid of all the unions (why stop with public), how will working conditions from bottom to top change?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Why presume that all unions must be ended if public service unions are? That’s not only unreasonable but unwarranted. Public Employee Unions are a completely different animal from the private sector and ought not be allowed by law.

Anonymous

Why do we need unions at all. If workers continue to receive a living wage, we will reach a point where income and wealth inequalities will stagnate and not continue to rise. The added wealth has to come from somewhere, and worker’s wages seem to be a good place to start. Lowering them will increase profits and corporation dividends. Stocks owned by the wealthy (top 10% own 85% of the stock market) will push these inequalities to new heights.

And then it will all trickle down, and we will all be rich.
Anonymous

Why do we need unions at all. If workers continue to receive a living wage, we will reach a point where income and wealth inequalities will stagnate and not continue to rise. The added wealth has to come from somewhere, and worker’s wages seem to be a good place to start. Lowering them will increase profits and corporation dividends. Stocks owned by the wealthy (top 10% own 85% of the stock market) will push these inequalities to new heights.

And then it will all trickle down, and we will all be rich.

Anonymous

OSHA, the ADA, and the Department of Labor do 99% of what unions originally did for workplace conditions and worker’s rights. The only workers with a conceivable need for a union are police and firefighters, whose equipment and job conditions don’t fall under typical workplace protections.

Other public employee unions simply exist to bribe politicians into giving them more money in exchange for campaign donations. Why else do you think government employee pay is now double that of real jobs in the private sector?
Anonymous

If we get rid of all the unions (why stop with public

Fundamentally no different than the attempts to lump illegal and legal immigration together and brand republicans as anti-immigrant.

Public unions are not the same thing as private sector unions.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

This does appear to be the left’s latest attempt at a talking point: to lie even harder about what people attempting to save our states are trying to do. The local Democratic Party HQ in town (the place with no flags or anything patriotic out front despite being a national party) has a sign that says Stop The War On Workers.

They’re hoping people will believe the lies, because they have no truth on their side.

Anonymous

Next up: republicans want to execute murderers and (spin the wheel) teachers. Because they figure, hey why stop with just murderers?

Repeat it enough and it becomes truth to some people.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

This does appear to be the left’s latest attempt at a talking point: to lie even harder about what people attempting to save our states are trying to do. The local Democratic Party HQ in town (the place with no flags or anything patriotic out front despite being a national party) has a sign that says Stop The War On Workers.

They’re hoping people will believe the lies, because they have no truth on their side.

Martin Hale

I think it’s very possible to keep PEU’s around to afford the workers protections but end the built-in conflict of interests which exists now.

The real problem with public sector collective bargaining is that the unions figured out a long time ago that by investing heavily in electoral and referendum politics, they could ‘stack the deck’ in their favour. What I mean by stacking the deck is:

- By investing in the election of politicians who are union-friendly, and who might even owe favours to the unions for campaign contributions, campaign assistance, etc., Once elected, these pols ensure that when terms which would be rejected by most private employers come up for approval, they get passed through.

– By investing in the passage of ballot initiatives which raise and/or allocate public funds for purposes which favour the unions. Get a ballot measure passed which puts X dollars in the hands of the entity against which you’re bargaining, then they can’t claim inability to pay in negotiations.

Private sector unions don’t have the ability to get union-friendly ‘plants’ sitting on the other side of the negotiations. Nor do they have the ability to influence directly how the companies with which they negotiate spend/allocate money prior to collective bargaining. Why should PEU’s have the ability to do them?

So maybe the change that needs to happen is that PEU’s are barred from concerted political activity of any sort. Maybe an accompanying change would be to require all PEU contracts to receive majority approval of the taxpayers affected by their terms just as millage increases are today. Maybe another change would be to impose a legislative obligation for PEU’s and public employers to engage in a one-time tabula rasa, start-from-a-clean-slate negotiation, at least over pensions and retiree health.
Martin Hale

I think it’s very possible to keep PEU’s around to afford the workers protections but end the built-in conflict of interests which exists now.

The real problem with public sector collective bargaining is that the unions figured out a long time ago that by investing heavily in electoral and referendum politics, they could ‘stack the deck’ in their favour. What I mean by stacking the deck is:

- By investing in the election of politicians who are union-friendly, and who might even owe favours to the unions for campaign contributions, campaign assistance, etc., Once elected, these pols ensure that when terms which would be rejected by most private employers come up for approval, they get passed through.

– By investing in the passage of ballot initiatives which raise and/or allocate public funds for purposes which favour the unions. Get a ballot measure passed which puts X dollars in the hands of the entity against which you’re bargaining, then they can’t claim inability to pay in negotiations.

Private sector unions don’t have the ability to get union-friendly ‘plants’ sitting on the other side of the negotiations. Nor do they have the ability to influence directly how the companies with which they negotiate spend/allocate money prior to collective bargaining. Why should PEU’s have the ability to do them?

So maybe the change that needs to happen is that PEU’s are barred from concerted political activity of any sort. Maybe an accompanying change would be to require all PEU contracts to receive majority approval of the taxpayers affected by their terms just as millage increases are today. Maybe another change would be to impose a legislative obligation for PEU’s and public employers to engage in a one-time tabula rasa, start-from-a-clean-slate negotiation, at least over pensions and retiree health.
Martin Hale

I think it’s very possible to keep PEU’s around to afford the workers protections but end the built-in conflict of interests which exists now.

The real problem with public sector collective bargaining is that the unions figured out a long time ago that by investing heavily in electoral and referendum politics, they could ‘stack the deck’ in their favour. What I mean by stacking the deck is:

- By investing in the election of politicians who are union-friendly, and who might even owe favours to the unions for campaign contributions, campaign assistance, etc., Once elected, these pols ensure that when terms which would be rejected by most private employers come up for approval, they get passed through.

– By investing in the passage of ballot initiatives which raise and/or allocate public funds for purposes which favour the unions. Get a ballot measure passed which puts X dollars in the hands of the entity against which you’re bargaining, then they can’t claim inability to pay in negotiations.

Private sector unions don’t have the ability to get union-friendly ‘plants’ sitting on the other side of the negotiations. Nor do they have the ability to influence directly how the companies with which they negotiate spend/allocate money prior to collective bargaining. Why should PEU’s have the ability to do them?

So maybe the change that needs to happen is that PEU’s are barred from concerted political activity of any sort. Maybe an accompanying change would be to require all PEU contracts to receive majority approval of the taxpayers affected by their terms just as millage increases are today. Maybe another change would be to impose a legislative obligation for PEU’s and public employers to engage in a one-time tabula rasa, start-from-a-clean-slate negotiation, at least over pensions and retiree health.
Martin Hale

I think it’s very possible to keep PEU’s around to afford the workers protections but end the built-in conflict of interests which exists now.

The real problem with public sector collective bargaining is that the unions figured out a long time ago that by investing heavily in electoral and referendum politics, they could ‘stack the deck’ in their favour. What I mean by stacking the deck is:

- By investing in the election of politicians who are union-friendly, and who might even owe favours to the unions for campaign contributions, campaign assistance, etc., Once elected, these pols ensure that when terms which would be rejected by most private employers come up for approval, they get passed through.

– By investing in the passage of ballot initiatives which raise and/or allocate public funds for purposes which favour the unions. Get a ballot measure passed which puts X dollars in the hands of the entity against which you’re bargaining, then they can’t claim inability to pay in negotiations.

Private sector unions don’t have the ability to get union-friendly ‘plants’ sitting on the other side of the negotiations. Nor do they have the ability to influence directly how the companies with which they negotiate spend/allocate money prior to collective bargaining. Why should PEU’s have the ability to do them?

So maybe the change that needs to happen is that PEU’s are barred from concerted political activity of any sort. Maybe an accompanying change would be to require all PEU contracts to receive majority approval of the taxpayers affected by their terms just as millage increases are today. Maybe another change would be to impose a legislative obligation for PEU’s and public employers to engage in a one-time tabula rasa, start-from-a-clean-slate negotiation, at least over pensions and retiree health.
Martin Hale

I think it’s very possible to keep PEU’s around to afford the workers protections but end the built-in conflict of interests which exists now.

The real problem with public sector collective bargaining is that the unions figured out a long time ago that by investing heavily in electoral and referendum politics, they could ‘stack the deck’ in their favour. What I mean by stacking the deck is:

- By investing in the election of politicians who are union-friendly, and who might even owe favours to the unions for campaign contributions, campaign assistance, etc., Once elected, these pols ensure that when terms which would be rejected by most private employers come up for approval, they get passed through.

– By investing in the passage of ballot initiatives which raise and/or allocate public funds for purposes which favour the unions. Get a ballot measure passed which puts X dollars in the hands of the entity against which you’re bargaining, then they can’t claim inability to pay in negotiations.

Private sector unions don’t have the ability to get union-friendly ‘plants’ sitting on the other side of the negotiations. Nor do they have the ability to influence directly how the companies with which they negotiate spend/allocate money prior to collective bargaining. Why should PEU’s have the ability to do them?

So maybe the change that needs to happen is that PEU’s are barred from concerted political activity of any sort. Maybe an accompanying change would be to require all PEU contracts to receive majority approval of the taxpayers affected by their terms just as millage increases are today. Maybe another change would be to impose a legislative obligation for PEU’s and public employers to engage in a one-time tabula rasa, start-from-a-clean-slate negotiation, at least over pensions and retiree health.
Anonymous

The difference between public sector unions and private ones is that the unions know that if they get too greedy with the private ones, they will put the companies out of business and the result would be job loses for their members. With public unions, they know that the government will just keep printing money and they can get as much as they want without the thought they may be hurting the general public.

Anonymous

Don’t make excuses for private unions. No unions are any good. A car today should cost about $5000 to build but because of mostly unions they don’t. When business need more money, they raise the price of goods, it’s done on everything from Milk to cars!

Anonymous

The difference between public sector unions and private ones is that the unions know that if they get too greedy with the private ones, they will put the companies out of business and the result would be job loses for their members. With public unions, they know that the government will just keep printing money and they can get as much as they want without the thought they may be hurting the general public.

Anonymous

You mean collective bargaining didn’t officially exist till 1958 when New York institutionalized it after strikes. AFSCME was started in 1936 though really the public workers unions starts in Wisconsin in 1932.

Frankly I find union lobbying no better or worse than corporate lobbying and neither are any more pro or anti-american than the other when you consider it’s just a bank account trading favors with a politician in order to improve conditions for their specific self-interest.

Certainly the unions need to change but the question I have is this: If we get rid of all the unions (why stop with public), how will working conditions from bottom to top change?
Anonymous

The only problem I have with this writing is that it is not disseminated widely enough. Not enough people are getting the message that greedy workers is what is taking this country down the tubes. The bunch of angry Social Security recipicents who blog here is not sufficient to spread the word.

We have a minimum wage, which is there to help the workers. What else do they want? And we don’t need Social Security, which is sending the country into bankruptcy.

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama’s deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared “Social Security” to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. August, 2010.

So if you are one of those parasites getting Social Security payments, stop them, Send them back like a good right wing Patriot.

TheDarkKnight

After you hit the ‘Post as joebritton’ button, how long did you laugh at your own pitiful attempt at sarcasm?
Anonymous

Great reply to Huston, joe!

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well we know who at least one of the mindless twits are that like every single post by joe. Personally I flag them all.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Actually it was inane as your post. But only idiots like slowjoe’s stupidity, so imagine our surprise!

Anonymous

The only problem I have with this writing is that it is not disseminated widely enough. Not enough people are getting the message that greedy workers is what is taking this country down the tubes. The bunch of angry Social Security recipicents who blog here is not sufficient to spread the word.

We have a minimum wage, which is there to help the workers. What else do they want? And we don’t need Social Security, which is sending the country into bankruptcy.

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming , Co-Chair of Obama’s deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared “Social Security” to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats. August, 2010.

So if you are one of those parasites getting Social Security payments, stop them, Send them back like a good right wing Patriot.
Pingback: The Democrat Caused Pension Bomb About to Destroy Our States | News Patriot

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN