Today, obama is pushing for a new $50 billion stimulus "jobs" package of money for state and local governments so that they can avoid layoffs of public workers. What a surprise!
The biggest component of the massive "stimulus" package passed in the first few days of the Obama administration was nearly $200 billion in money sent to states as a pay off to the public employee unions that helped Obama and the Obamacrats take power. When the economic downturn hit and state and local revenues were cut dramatically, the normal reaction would be downsizing by the state and local governments. Such a downsizing would have meant that taxes in the states could have remained where they were rather than being ratcheted up to pay for all those employees and their gold plated benefits and pensions. This would have been a good things allowing the economy to rebound faster.
Instead of promoting economic growth, however, the Obamacrats decided to pay off their union allies by sending money to protect extravagant salaries, benefits and pensions. But the federal money has now run out, and the unions are pressuring their clients in the government to send more. Hence Obama's request.
The truth is that it would be totally counterproductive for the feds to send money to keep state workers on the job. What is needed is the contraction of the state work forces; the contraction of benefits for the remaining workers and the end to crazy pension schemes. Of course, Obama says that failure to send the money will result in layoffs of teachers. He ignores the thousands of bureaucrats, administrators, and the like who just pull down a fat paycheck for showing up (most of the time). Do we really need to spend millions across the country for diversity administrators who promote diversity in state government? Do we really need tourism departments in states that are sometimes bigger than the number of tourists who come to those states? Is there any reason why state workers should make on average 50% more than private workers and still get better benefits and pensions?
In 1976, New York City had a financial crisis that forced it to cut back. City employment went from over 300,000 workers to under 200,000. Essential city services were not affected. Indeed, the only difference I noted at the time was that when I went to the County Clerks office to file papers, there were only two people ignoring those in line instead of the six people who used to ignore us. There is no question that similar cuts should be made nationwide. Congress should not step in to rescue the extra workers. Indeed, the Congress that relies on cutting waste and corruption to fund the health care plan (ha ha ha ) should at least try to let the states cut waste and corruption in state governments.
Look at New Jersey. The budget proposed by Governor Chris Chistie cuts over 25% of all state expenditures. That is not a cut in the rate of expansion, that is an absolute cut in what is being spent. The budget makes painful choices, but look at the cuts to education. Christie told the teachers that if they would agree to a pay freeze -- not a cut -- and to paying 1.5% towards the cost of their healthcare (they now pay nothing), there would be no layoffs of teachers. The union refused. Instead, the union went on TV with an ad campaign charging that Christie was attacking the school children of the state. So there you have it, if the teachers don't get a raise and have to pay a tiny amount towards their own healthcare (like everyone else does), it is an attack on the kids. The truth is that all that has been uncovered is the limitless greed of the unions. The teachers already make substantially more than the median income in New Jersey in exchange for working 9 long months out of 12.
Obama's new stimulus bill is an abomination. Obama has got to go!
No comments:
Post a Comment