Reason has a nice discussion (don’t forget to read the comments) of Michael Barone’s latest column in the Washington Examiner.
The essence of both pieces: we are headed toward a showdown between those who work in the private sector, and those who work in the public (i.e. “government”) sector. From Barone’s piece:
It looks like a happy new year for you -- if you're a public employee.
That's the takeaway from a recent Rasmussen poll that shows that 46 percent of government employees say the economy is getting better while just 31 percent say it's getting worse. In contrast, 32 percent of those with private-sector jobs say the economy is getting better, while 49 percent it is getting worse.
Nearly half, 44 percent, of government employees rate their personal finances as good or excellent. Only 33 percent of private-sector employees do.
It sounds like public- and private-sector employees are looking at different Americas. And they are.
Private-sector employment peaked at 115.8 million in December 2007, when the recession officially began. It was down to 108.5 million last November. That's a 6 percent decline.
Public-sector employment peaked at 22.6 million in August 2008. It fell a bit in 2009, then has rebounded back to 22.5 million in November. That's less than a 1 percent decline.
This is not an accident; it is the result of deliberate public policy. About one-third of the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February 2009 was directed at state and local governments, which have been facing declining revenues and are, mostly, required to balance their budgets.
The policy aim, Democrats say, was to maintain public services and aid. The political aim, although Democrats don't say so, was to maintain public-sector jobs -- and the flow of union dues to the public employees unions that represent almost 40 percent of public-sector workers.
And from Gillespie at Reason:
There is a looming showdown in American society between public-sector employees and the rest of us, in terms of job security and, especially, unsustainable gold-plated retirement and health benefits that are working hard to bankrupt whole states such as California, New York, and New Jersey. As with some parts of the private sector (domestically owned auto companies, for instance), basic compensation packages were hammered into place in a very different America, and conferred massive future benefits when politicians were either too stupid or too cowardly to confront basic questions of fiscal responsibility. Do you want to spend your life (and have your kids spend their lives) to pay ever-increasing taxes for teacher, cop, and bureaucrat retirements at early ages? Especially while you're expected to fully fund your own? This is a social contract that needs to be redrawn ASAP.
I’ll admit to being pretty ticked off right now. My husband’s last paystub of the year just came in the mail—I did the math: in withholding taxes alone this year, 30% of his income went to the government. Doesn’t sound like much, you say? We ought to be grateful it’s not more? Well, I suppose (although I’m pretty sure that next year it will be more). But this doesn’t even begin to include the taxes we pay—property taxes on our home, sales taxes on everything we buy, gas taxes, and an assortment of other hidden taxes that I’m sure I don’t know about. And then, to add insult to injury, the government sponsored monopoly that is the Post Office: I just went downtown to mail a package (to the IRS, of all places, but that’s a side story), and found a sign on the window which read “This Window Closed from 11-12 for lunch”. Surely, there are more than two people working at the post office in my town (I’ve been in there before and seen several near the window at different times), and they could actually provide a service by alternating their lunches and keeping the window open!
Gillespie may be right—there may be a showdown coming—those who produce vs. those who get paid for telling us why we’re not producing enough.
Recent Comments