Tuesday, August 10, 2010

WTF? This Blogger Is A "Welfare Queen"?!?

The Dumbos' St. Dutch (Ronald W. Reagan) launched his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS. Hmmmm. A SoCal dude with a career in Hollywood goes to deepest, darkest Neshoba County to open his presidential campaign? Wait, wasn't Philadelphia the final stop for civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney during the Freedom Summer of 1964? Why, yes it was. St. Dutch even got things off to a rousing start by shouting to the lily-white crowd: “I believe in states’ rights.” Why would a Hollywood-type go to rural Mississippi to launch a presidential campaign? Hmmmm. The Trickster had stolen a page from Alabama governor George C. Wallace in 1968 and the so-called "Southern Strategy" with a Krypto-Klan (Everything starts with a "K" in the Klan.) message to white voters in the South. Obviously, the Southern Strategy had worked for The Trickster in 1968 and 1972, so why not hand it to St. Dutch in 1980? However, St. Dutch went beyond tossing red meat to Mississippi Klansmen. He had a message for white racists in the North, too. He proclaimed that the African American neighborhoods of this country were filled with Welfare Queens: overweight black women who collected excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation. Now, in 2010, the cycle starts all over again. However, thanks to welfare reform enacted in the Clinton years, the Welfare Queen receded from the Dumbo demonology. However, with the election of the POTUS 44, the old demonology gained new life. However, this time around, the Welfare Queens of the 21st century are recipients of public pensions: retired firemen and old teachers (like this blogger). In 1964, when Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered while their white captors shouted: "Kill the nigger-lovers and that nigger ridin' with 'em!" Now, in 2010, the Dumbos and their fellow-travelers mumble about free-loadin' geezer public pensioners. At the beginning of the end for the Frecnh monarchy in 1789, Marie Antoinette supposedly said of the starving French peasants who couldn't afford bread: "Let them eat cake." Now, we have a growing cry to "Let the geezers eat cat food." If this is a (fair & balanced) call to the barricades, so be it. And here's a lagniappe from this blogger.

[x YouTube/JBRider555Channel]
"The American Dream"
By George Carlin

[x TNR]
Why Public Employees Are The New Welfare Queens
By Jonathan Cohn

Tag Cloud of the following article

created at TagCrowd.com

This is an item about why your local fireman or teacher has such a nice retirement package, why you probably don’t, and the way conservatives are using that contrast to advance their broader economic agenda.

Friday’s New York Times had a column about the “coming class war,” focusing on the fact that retirement packages for public employees seem to be a lot more generous than the ones for private employees. This is not a new discussion. Experts and think-tanks have been churning out research on the topic for years. But, thanks in part to the recession, the pension gap has become a major political controversy.

Conservatives say that excessive public employee pensions exemplify the greed of unions (which sought these generous benefits for public employees) and inefficiency of government (which agreed to pay them). If local and state governments are struggling financially, these conservatives say, they should figure out some way to reduce or revoke those promised benefits, rather than come to Washington and beg for help from the taxpayers.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee sums up the right’s mantra succinctly: “No state bailouts should be contemplated until the wages and pensions of public sector employees are brought into line.” Translation: You shouldn't have to give up another cent of your taxes until government stops paying its bureaucrats so damn much.

I'm sure that argument resonates with a lot of Americans, particularly those who are struggling themselves. But is the premise of the overpaid public employee valid? That's not so clear.

While raw statistics show that public employees get more compensation than private employees doing comparable work, research that adjusts for variables like education has suggested otherwise. Earlier this year, a study with such adjustments by economists Keith Bender and John Heywood concluded that compensation for local and state workers was, on average, 6.8 to 7.4 percent lower than compensation for comparable private sector workers.

Also, as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research points out, many public employees don’t get Social Security. Overall, he says, “most public sector pensions do not provide retirees with an especially high standard of living.” Exceptions to this rule frequently include firefighters and police, particularly in New York. Then again, they risk their lives to protect the rest of us from lethal threats, which is more than you can say for CEOs like the former telecom executive who in 2007 retired with a $159 million benefit package.

To be clear, I can't vouch independently for the calculations or the conclusions in all of this research. (Among other things, Andrew Biggs, of the American Enterprise Institute, suggests public employees really do fare better once you account for retiree health benefits.) If nothing else, the fact that so many public employees still have traditional pensions is increasingly an anachronism. The majority of private sector retirees don't have retirement plans from their employers. Those that do increasingly have private investment accounts (like 401Ks) that don't guarantee fixed benefits.

And to the extent this gap exists, conservatives are surely right when they say that unions and government accommodation of them are the main reason. Unions represent around 37 percent of public sector workers, compared to 7 percent of private sector workers. Note that one of the few exceptions to the public-private compensation differential seems to be unionized industrial laborers, like the auto workers—and that, during last year’s debate over what to do with the auto industry, we were having a very similar conversation about the relatively rich benefits that members of the United Auto Workers were getting.

But ask yourself the same question you should have been asking then: To what extent is the problem that the retirement benefits for unionized public sector workers have become too generous? And to what extent is the problem that retirement benefits for everybody else have become too stingy?

I would suggest it's more the latter than the former. The promise of stable retirement—one not overly dependent on the ups and downs of the stock market—used to be part of the social contract. If you got an education and worked a steady job, then you got to live out the rest of your life comfortably. You might not be rich, but you wouldn't be poor, either.

Unions, whatever their flaws, have delivered on that for their members. (In theory, retirement was supposed to rest on a "three-legged stool" of Social Security, pensions, and private benefits.) But unions have not been able to secure similar benefits for everybody else. That's why the gap exists, although perhaps not for long.

The fact is that local and state goverments have promised a lot more than they can deliver financially, in part because people love public services but hate to pay the taxes for them. In the short term, then, budget cuts are probably inevitable. And, in this political universe, the likely alternative to reducing public employee compensation is cutting essential services for people who are just as worthy and quite likely more needy.

In the long term, though, it seems like we should be looking for ways make sure that all workers have a decent living and a stable retirement, rather than taking away the security that some, albeit too few, have already. But that's a conversation about shared vulnerability and shared prosperity—a conversation we don't seem to be having right now. Ω

[Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at The New Republic magazine and a senior fellow at Demos. Cohn graduated from Harvard University and was the President (editor-in-chief) of The Harvard Crimson in his senior year. He is the author of Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay the Price (2007).]

Copyright © 2010 The New Republic

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Creative Commons License
Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves by Neil Sapper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at sapper.blogspot.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.

Copyright © 2010 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

No comments:

Post a Comment

☛ STOP!!! Read the following BEFORE posting a Comment!

Include your e-mail address with your comment or your comment will be deleted by default. Your e-mail address will be DELETED before the comment is posted to this blog. Comments to entries in this blog are moderated by the blogger. Violators of this rule can KMA (Kiss My A-Double-Crooked-Letter) as this blogger's late maternal grandmother would say. No e-mail address (to be verified AND then deleted by the blogger) within the comment, no posting. That is the (fair & balanced) rule for comments to this blog.