Sunday Chillin’ Public Pensions, Finance, and Unions 22May2011
Sippin' on tea, the kids watching Dangermouse....got a little too much sun yesterday which doesn't mesh well with someone as pale as I.
Yeah, I'm logy.
But these posts pretty much write themselves, don't they?
PUBLIC FINANCE AND THINGS FALL APART
Greek bonds downgraded (warning: NYT link), and not by a little -- Fitch dropped them down three notches, which is a rather large movement. Sure, they were already in the junk range, but still. Things aren't going well there, and for all the whining over DSK's troubles being behind this -- no. Greek's clusterfark (attendant with pro-sucking-on-govt-teat-"anarchists") has nothing to do with Mr. Strauss-Kahn's belt issues, for all we'd like to say "entitlement" yadda yadda yadda. Even without DSK, this crap would have happened.
Reality hits Spain as well, as its social welfare system is unsustainable. I find it interesting how Socialists are in charge when the culmination of their systems have hit a demographic wall....and people get sour as the promises can't be fulfilled. Can get dangerous as other populists try to ramp up the promises, which are still undeliverable, sorry. You can't create 30-year-olds from thin air. Except in sci-fi novels.
Let's not get too uppity about European social welfare programs. Ignoring the whole "adult baby" brouhaha this week, there's something more structural awry given we are paying benefits for dead people in significant amounts.
From the WSJ, Jason Zweig writes why holders of U.S. Treasury bonds should be concerned about the possibility of different kinds of default. I think everyone is going to get a lesson in what structural default, technical default, outright default, etc. are in very short order. Bondholders should already know about this, but I'm sorry to say that those holding government bonds are not necessarily the most sophisticated of investors.
Uncertainty is what makes muni bond buyers bonkers
Joe Mysak calls Meredith Whitney to task about the very specific predictions she made re: municipal bonds, as Whitney goes to the pages of the WSJ to remind people that the muni armageddon is still to come, and that, yes, there are many ways to default. Going back to Mysak, I'm pulling this quote:
In the modern era, there is little to suggest that serious public officials will shirk their duty to bondholders.
AH HA HA HA. "serious public offiials" Owie. Oh my side. Yeah. Serious public officials. You mean the ones who fashioned the back-DROP benefits? Those serious public officials? The ones who "funded" the plans with pension obligation bonds? Are those the serious public officials we're talking about? Do tell.
UNIONS SHTUFF
Right-to-work to make inroads into New England?
Unions remind Dems who's the boss. Or they hope they do. Dems may realize the unions are outnumbered by other voters at this point in history. But hey, cutting off the money can hurt.
How do unions affect state budgets? The duh conclusion:
“The main differences between public and private sector come from economics,” said Norcross. “Private sector unions can raise their wages, but not their employment. By contrast, public sector unions can increase both wage and employment outcomes.”
Well, yeah, in the short run. But when fiscal reality hits, you can get a massive readjustment of those outcomes, as in Costa Mesa, California. Recently, after looking into a budget abyss, the city council laid off nearly half the current city workforce and outsourced their functions. And note, that doesn't mean a 1-to-1 replacement of jobs. And definitely not necessarily a replacement with a union job. Funny how assumptions can get altered in a hurry when reality hits and the money runs out. Rent-seekers have to be careful, otherwise they create their own destruction.
GENERAL PENSION ISSUES
U.S. Postal Service warns of potential default on retiree obligations
After all the fun beating up on state workers and their benefits, it's the federal workers' turn to become punching bags! And then a guy whose main constituents are federal workers objects! Shocker! Another shocker: federal employees aren't happy about it. I like how people mention that cutting benefits will make government jobs less attractive, as if that's a bad thing.
National teachers union realizes that spiking and double-dipping makes them (and DB pensions) look bad, so they say that it should be looked into.
ALABAMA
Finally. Pensioners in bankrupt Prichard have gone almost 2 years without payments, and there may be a deal on the table. They will probably never get their full promised benefits, but at least it's not zero.
CALIFORNIA
The Golden State Blues: George Will on how it fell apart in California
Request for investigation into disability pensions in that cesspit of government corruption, Bell, Calif.
It's going to be an interesting November in San Fran as Mayor Ed Lee says he's putting a pension reform proposal on the ballot with or without union agreement. Other groups have their own competing proposals they intend to get on the ballot.
Capitola working on lowering pension costs ahead of contract negotiations in 2012. Watsonville looking at its own costs. Ventura County has some eye-popping numbers itself. It's like it's some sort of widespread problem or something.
Steven Greenhut says yeah, it's kind of a widespread problem. And while it may look puny compared to the state budget, it's outsize for local budgets.
Seeking to cut down on pension spiking
ILLINOIS
So there's a lot of politicking going on in Illinois re: pension reforms. And, surprise surprise, there are dirty tricks. Some stuff on the actual bill under consideration.
Rahm was sworn in as Chicago's non-Daley mayor. Can he deal with the fiscal issues, and the pension problem in particular?
Consultant says retirees should pay more for their health benefits.
KANSAS
Pension reform bill goes to governor, but questions linger about to what limits reform can be taken.
MICHIGAN
Emergency financial manager's blanket powers in Benton Harbor bring spotlight and cries of oppression.... oppression of the fiscally inept. Poor babies.
Detroit Mayor Bing proclaims that there are savings in pension contributions because they changed the smoothing period for actuarial losses.... but no. No there aren't. Changing the method of funding the pensions doesn't change the cost of the pensions. You have to change the actual pension benefits to change their costs.
MINNESOTA
Minneapolis pension tension - two closed funds taking an outsize portion of the city budget, and an attempt to fold them into state funds. Minneapolis contribution to these funds would drop a great deal if this occurred.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Negotiations on pension reforms continue. Both groups agree that public employees should work longer, contribute more to pensions, and for most plans, receive lower benefits. They're just wrangling over details now.
NEW YORK
Will Cuomo truly fix pensions? Let's ask Magic 8 Ball: My sources say no. Changing stuff for new hires does really nothing other than prevent problems from getting worse by too much.
Well, DiNapoli goes for some low-hanging fruit, preventing double-dipping, but that's not really going to save a bunch of money. But double-dipping doesn't make for good PR.
In pensions corruption news, Liberal Party ex-boss Ray Harding avoids jail time.
OHIO
A proposal to yank the pensions of corrupt pols -- I say let's be proactive. No pensions for any pols.
OKLAHOMA
Pension reform bill signed by governor
PENNSYLVANIA
Pittsburgh may have gotten over their math problems, but they still have huge fundedness issues with their pension plan and are trying to avoid being taken over by the state. Still. At some point, you'd think they'd just give up.
RHODE ISLAND
Something to look forward to: a report to be released on Monday by the state treasurer on just how much Rhode Island pension systems suck (just being a psychic here). A think tank already has put out its own report on the suckitude.
How much do they suck? The per capita debt is $30K.
TENNESSEE
Legislature passes bill to curb teachers unions, stripping them of most collective bargaining rights.
Easter Pensions, Unions, and DOOOOOOOOOOM 24April2011
Hallelujah! He is Risen!
Guess what's not?
But the good news is that it will not require the Second Coming to fix this mess. Yeah, none of the below is particularly fun, happy, or joy joy joy...but all it will take is a little bit of reality and castor oil and we'll get through this.
Feel good?
Yeah, I thought so.
SOVEREIGN AND MUNICIPAL DEBT
Considering making muni bonds taxable - as Girard Miller of Governing Magazine notes, this proposal is DOA, but Miller tells the munis to consider this...because they're going to need all the financing options they can get.
From Kevin D. Williamson, the four national debts: ranging from the short-term to the long-term. As Williamson notes, it's those medium-term notes where the action is, and those turn over in the 1- to 10-year range, and as interest rates rise in the medium term, that's really going to hit. And can hit hard. Because some of the holders of said notes aren't too happy about the situation.
Governmental accounting -- the kind of tricks the federal government is up to would put private entities in the slammer, according to Deroy Murdock.
More on federal debt from William H. Gross at PIMCO.
Fed claims muni bond defaults unlikely. I don't exactly disagree, but I think that the munis are going to find a tough time of it in rolling over their bonds or issuing new ones. The power to tax isn't infinite, especially when one's population keeps moving away (ask Detroit about that). Here's the Chicago Fed letter on this.
Want to feel better (relatively)? Take a look at how Greece is doing.
And plunging you back into despair: a history of the U.S. debt ceiling.
UNIONS MAKING FRIENDS
Grocery workers' union attacks non-union grocer trying to compete with non-union Wal-Mart.
Girard Miller considers public employee pay.
Indiana unions paid for Indiana Dems to bravely run away from their jobs.
Hey, Boeing, you thought you could site your factory in a different state? Sorry, you're shackled to Puget Sound and to its unions. Until the court cases are resolved, at any rate. More on same from Tom Bevan.
Free Enterprise Nation sends out an email, gets replies from (purportedly) public workers.
Much to our surprise, this seemingly innocuous email has produced an inordinate number of negative and downright nasty email responses to FEN. Many replies claim to come from public sector workers (although we have no way to verify their true identity) who say that the facts stated in our communiqué are overblown, preposterous and/or just plain untrue. Because of those charges, we would like to make our sources available for verification. Ironically, the facts we used all came directly from the government’s own websites.
Florida unions pulling money from banks supporting FL Chamber of Commerce.
Seattle city union blocking free effort to clean city parks. They are probably correct - I bet the company is trying to get the city to outsource further city services to them. I don't see why the taxpayer would care if the trash service is from a full-time city employee or provided by a private service, though. If it's cheaper, it's cheaper.
A similar debate in Costa Mesa as employees are laid off and services outsourced... and a raucous public debate ensues.
SEIU trying to get non-union workers in on their "actions". I guess I can see the theory behind it, but I'm not seeing this as a winner. It's really not going to work when the class war is seen as government workers with job tenure against private sector workers who have no guarantees at all.
GENERAL PUBLIC PENSION ISSUES
How the rate of return affects required pension contributions and assets.
Is 8.5% a reasonable discount rate for what is essentially an annuity? More on why an 8.5% assumption is not exactly prudent in today's world.
Public workers decide to get ahead of massive layoffs (and benefit cuts) by retiring in droves. Hey guys, don't assume that means you'll never get cut. Thing is, just because older, more expensive workers are retiring, doesn't mean it's necessarily cheaper for the government -- now they've got to pay for medical benefits they'd pay for anyway for that person, plus perhaps a replacement worker; and then underfunded pension plans start to liquidate which can end in a death spiral.
Last year we got Pew's Trillion Dollar Gap study. What will the number be this week?
GENERAL RETIREMENT ISSUES
Tom Blumer says retirement expectations need to be managed -- I agree. I tell everybody to expect to work til they die (or total disability) unless they save up for it.
Michelle Malkin on making 70 the new 65. Frankly, 65 wasn't the old 65 -- people on the whole start taking Social Security benefits within the first year of eligibility (when they're 62)...though that has been falling. And they do that because generally they haven't been working for a few years at that point. People may change that behavior, and I think they should, but merely changing the "normal retirement age" on these plans will reduce the overall cost, not necessarily get people to change when they retire.
It's a good start that the UK abolished its mandatory retirement ages, but as we've seen in the U.S., that does only so much.
An interesting method to get people to save more for retirement: make them think of themselves as older (and poor), using virtual aging.
The Economist's case for raising the retirement age to 70.
Hey - it's not just public pensions that are troublesome! Taxpayers may be asked to bail out private pensions, too! Yay!
ALABAMA
DROP benefits -- dropped in Alabama, and for very good reason.
CALIFORNIA
Orange County loses court fight over retroactive boost to deputies' pensions. So what's next? All I have to say is that if the pension debt isn't real, that means the pension promises aren't real, and don't need to be paid. Want to make that legal argument?
I knew this was coming -- one of the parties that will get blamed in the public pensions mess will be actuaries. Or, hopefully, specific actuaries as opposed to the entire profession. There's a reason that item #2 on the Society of Actuaries' list of strategic initiatives for 2011 is looking at the reputational risk from public pensions. A little too late, perhaps, but hey - at least they realize there's a risk there.
The dispute between current services and pensions for past services coming to the fore again and again and again in San Francisco. Jeff Adachi had tried something last year, and it looks like he's trying again... just as others are, as well.
Those generous pension benefits cost a lot? Ooops! Our bad!
FLORIDA
This is an interesting turn to the public pensions debate: a firefighter who has been doing his own investigation into his local pensions was ordered to undergo drug and psychiatric testing.
Florida politician defends the draconian proposal to have state employees contribute 3% of their salaries to their pensions. The bastard!
ILLINOIS
This inspires confidence: pensions to be paid without borrowing for the first time in two years. If you can stand the excitement, here's a 19-minute video of the state treasurer talking about borrowing to pay off the bills and pensions.
But are they really? Seems they're not exactly current on their regular bills.
Meh, forget about constitutionality: let's just pass the damn pension bills and let the courts sort it out. Allrighty then.
Evanston fire chief accused of double-dipping. I assume lots of boomer-age (and younger!!) public workers are double-dipping at this point.
MICHIGAN
Michigan passes a mutual assured destruction bill, where all sorts of contracts, collective bargaining, etc., will be dissolved in the event of Really Bad Fiscal Stuff (TM) occurring. Primarily, Detroit is the target of this. And of course, various parties are not sitting still for this -- time to lawyer up!
Hey, it's a better idea than the pension tax. They definitely don't need something to spur more people to leave. I mean, what exactly is the attraction to stay?
NEW JERSEY
John Bury says that politicians doing nothing may be the best option for NJ pensions.... given what happened when they did meddle with the pensions. Of course, doing nothing doesn't end up with happy results, either.
As per the previous story above, NJ is seeing more retirements as Christie talks cuts. Thing is, here's the progression: first, those not yet hired get whacked (less generous benefits, etc.), then current employees, but if the money is too tight, current retirees also get hit. So sure, retiring will prevent getting hit by certain things, but it doesn't mean you're safe.
NEW YORK
Ex-comptroller Hevesi was sentenced for corruption related to pay-for-play and the NY state pensions... he was sole trustee of the plan. The pension governance set-up hasn't changed, by the way, since he was found out.
As long as this crap goes through one office, through one person, you're going to get cases like this.
TEXAS
Talk about needing a resurrection: Texas pension fund needs 21% return just to get to 80% funded ratio. Or, you know, y'all could PUT MORE MONEY IN.
Disputes over pensions enter the Fort Worth mayoral race.
VIRGINIA
Double-dipping doesn't play well in Virginia... or anywhere else, really.
UK
The hot topic on the other side of the pond is teachers pensions. Teachers say they will quit if told to work longer (or contribute more to their pensions). Fine. See what you can get elsewhere. It's a free choice.
Oh, you won't quit your jobs outright, but will strike? Whatever.
And they show their class (har har) by heckling and jeering the schools minister! Huzzah, guys! Next time, throw your poo! That'll show him!
Let me l'arn y'all some Americanisms that may help you deal with your situation: Tough shit. Suck it up. You ain't got the money of.
How It Changed Me
Rather than talk about where I was or what I did on 9-11, which was really pretty typical and unspectacular, it seems important to remember just exactly how things changed that morning. More specifically, the events of that day initiated a change in my own views that was both slow and drastic.
After voting for Clinton in my first two presidential elections, I had voted for Bush in 2000, but still considered myself a moderate. I had considered myself moderate growing up, but only on the aggregate. I can't think of a single issue on which I was "moderate," yet the combination of liberal and conservative opinions made me think of myself as moderate, if uncomfortably so.
As it was, my personal aversion to Al Gore, precipitated by his far left environmental loonacy and completed by the Clinton stench, led to my switch. 9-11, however, forced me to consider, for the first time as an adult, my views of foreign policy. Before I knew what was happening, I discovered I was a neocon in favor of preemptive strikes, "nation building," and revisiting the whole idea of "just war."
This epiphany led me to further reevaluate my economic ideology as well. Why not? My entire belief system had been shaken to the core in a matter of three years, so it only made sense to take an outside look at the ideals that had been instilled into me throughout my youth. Suddenly, I realized my views on unions, public schools, taxation, race relations, and free markets had drastically changed to the point where I felt George W. Bush was too liberal; or at least too acquiescent.
While I certainly can't call myself a 9-11 Republican; I do consider myself a 9-11 conservative.
Pensions roundup, 12July2010
- NY trucking company being investigated for bilking [private] union pensions - using the rules to get around having to make contributions, which leads to the second item
- List of troubled private union pensions - looking down the list, I see the NYS Teamsters fund is 51.4% fundedness. If you were wondering: that's not good.
- A tale of two corrupt cops - one has his pension now, and one does not
- Pension politics injected into comptroller race in NY - DiNapoli has something of a point: the new tier in NYS pensions would cut down on the spiking; but it doesn't really help with the hordes of overtime-abusing people currently straining finances
- When will NJ pension money run out? - median answer: 2021.
The problem with multiemployer pensions
A good explanation of the core issue with multiemployer plans:
Here’s a not uncommon scenario: A union takes over a hypothetical trucking company — let’s call it XYZ Trucking. The first thing they’re going to do is use their newly acquired powers of mandatory binding arbitration to force them into a multi-employer pension plan, usually with companies represented by the same and/or affiliated unions. So the workers at XYZ Trucking now find themselves in the same pension plan as ABC Trucking.
But let’s say that XYZ trucking gets hit hard by the economy or its business suffers for some other reason. Meanwhile, union strictures make the company less adaptable or otherwise able to respond to the changing business environment, even as the union continues to strong-arm better benefits and salaries year after year. Union pension plan liabilities grow to the point that it affects the company’s balance sheet so adversely the company can’t get a loan. Eventually, XYZ trucking declares bankruptcy.
The good news for XYZ trucking employees is that they are in a multi-employer pension plan. Under “last man standing” accounting rules, ABC Trucking now has to pick up the tab for all the workers at XYZ Trucking even though they never worked at the company.
So union management bleeds one company dry, then makes an unrelated company responsible for picking up their pension obligations. Then they start bleeding them dry. When there’s no one left to bleed dry, they have Democratic senators and House members in their pocket to push this bill on the taxpayer.
Bottom line is that unions are taken care of, while taxpayers are left to shell out billions. Nice racket, huh?
The only thing I've got to say is that if the MEPs want their bailout, they had best move fast. So many piggies at the bailout trough have really lowered the level for additional bailouts, and then there's the whole question if they'll have enough leverage with the next Congress.
There are a whole bunch of Democratic constituencies trying to be bought off right now in advance of the midterm elections, some with legislation that will only pass the House, so the Dems can say “Hey, we tried” and “See, we need even stronger support in the Senate... only 59 senators and we're hog-tied! Sorry we can't do anything about DADT/Amnesty for illegals/cardcheck/cap&trade/MEP bailout unless you give us oodles of campaign $$ and come out in force in Nov!” and to the independents they can say “Look, we're not dangerous! We can't pass the stuff you don't like, so it's safe to re-elect your local Dem!”
So yeah, I expect that like with the other issues listed above, there will be lots of Democratic jawboning, passage of something in the House, and it dies a lonely death in the Senate. I could be wrong, but the private unions don't have broad enough electoral power to influence many Senators, even Democratic ones. And they can't look to the public employee unions for support, as those guys need an even bigger bailout.
….well, those were my thoughts last week when I originally got this post together, and now I'm not so sure. I think the Dems realize they're screwed this election cycle, so they might as well go for broke. I just don't see why some Republicans are aiding and abetting this. Well, in my previous pension news roundup, I saw that Rep. McCotter was receiving a lot of pension PAC money, so that's one explanation.
Followups – demography and pensions
To followup on a previous demography post, we see that Europe is realizing the party is over:
With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions.
....
In Athens, Aris Iordanidis, 25, an economics graduate working in a bookstore, resents paying high taxes to finance Greece’s bloated state sector and its employees. “They sit there for years drinking coffee and chatting on the telephone and then retire at 50 with nice fat pensions,” he said. “As for us, the way things are going we’ll have to work until we’re 70.”
Yeah, socialism generally isn't that great, but what really isn't great when you don't pump out enough kids to keep the Ponzi transfer-of-wealth from young to old going:

My advice? Death panels. Soylent green. Or encouraging the elderly to take up a more active lifestyle, such as drag racing and meth use.
The numerator of that ratio is pretty baked in, but one can always reduce the denominator. The other choice is, yes, make people work til they're a lot closer to death than 30 years from life expectancy.
Separately, here in the U.S., I see there is some talk of bailing out multiemployer plans, which are situations where a large union of private employees (say, the UAW) has a pension set up for its members, covered by multiple employers (so as to provide some mobility of the workers amongst large employers while holding onto their pension benefit). Thing is, these plans tend to be abysmally funded – many times, worse than the public plans I've been linking:
If these multi-employer lock boxes are underfunded — and they are, obviously — the question, it seems to me, is who is responsible? Who failed to meet its part of the agreement for funding and why?
If it is the companies who agreed in principle to take on the pensions — and they cannot meet that obligation — the unions can either demand the companies be liquidated to meet those obligations (the net result being a loss of jobs but a payment of retirement benefits as promised) or the unions can adjust demands in a compromise that will maintain corporate solvency and so retain jobs.
Is that about right?
What shouldn’t happen is that taxpayers be asked to make up the difference — in a move that serves as de facto welfare both for corporations AND union workers. Or at least, that’s how it appears to me at first blush.
Well, Jeff, yes, there's the PBGC, and sure, we, the taxpayer =may= get to be on the hook for these pensions. But it's not like public pensions in a very big difference: PBGC has a cap on the benefit it will pay out to any pensioner. None of these >$100K pensions for plans taken over by the PBGC.
Thing is, there are too many losses trying to be soaked up right now, and while monetizing debt looks attractive, it would take a hell of a lot to cover everything.
But to give you an idea of how likely the MEP members will get their payments, whether it's the eensy-weensy amount currently guaranteed by the PBGC, or a beefed-up amount to at least single employer coverage, take a look at the pension plans of the union leaders – these are very much well-funded plans. They're not planning on getting bailed out (and they sure as hell don't want to be limited to the modest amounts allowed by a PBGC cap for a bankrupt plan).
Obamanomics: The Parasite Is More Important Than the Host
From The Washington Times:
Employment is up, wages are up, and job security is as firm as ever. Unfortunately, this is only true for federal government workers.
President Obama is presiding over the largest federal work force in decades. In the current fiscal year, the number of civilian workers will grow by 153,000, to 1.43 million. These are the only jobs Mr. Obama can legitimately claim to have created. Unfortunately, they are subsidized by deficit spending.
Federal positions are not shovel-ready make-work jobs, either. Working for Uncle Sam pays extremely well these days. Government employment used to be a calling, a career in which a sense of fulfillment from public service offset low pay and spartan working conditions. Not so today. According to a study by the Cato Institute, 2008 federal worker pay-and-benefits packages averaged $119,982. That's more than double the private-sector average of $59,909.
The ranks of the highest-paid federal workers are growing fast. A report in USA Today indicated massive growth in the number of pre-benefit six-figure federal salaries. For example, the number of people earning $170,000 or more in the Transportation Department went from one in December 2007 to 1,690 by June 2009. The average above-salary "performance bonus" for federal senior executives in 2008 was $14,831. We doubt these inflated salaries and awards are buying Americans the best government in history.
And Obama would prefer that they were unionized. Mickey Kaus:
In the past decade, LAUSD officials spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district's 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance — and only four were fired, during legal struggles that wore on, on average, for five years each. Two of the three others were paid large settlements, and one was reinstated. The average cost of each battle is $500,000.[W]e also discovered that 32 underperforming teachers were initially recommended for firing, but then secretly paid $50,000 by the district, on average, to leave without a fight. Moreover, 66 unnamed teachers are being continually recycled through a costly mentoring and retraining program but failing to improve, and another 400 anonymous teachers have been ordered to attend the retraining. [E.A.]
That's less than one attempted firing a year. Why? Mainly because firings---and the bad performance evaluations that precede them---are almost invariably contested by the union.
Meanwhile, in beggared California, a judge says that the Governator doesn't have the right to furlough state employees:
An Alameda County Superior Court judge Thursday ordered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to halt thrice-monthly furloughs for tens of thousands of state workers, saying the administration overstepped its authority in approving the unpaid days off.
It's not unlike the extraconstitutional provision that Harry Reid wants to work into Health Care Reform that would require a supermajority to undo the work of a reconciliation minority, even though reconciliation was never designed to create a new entitlement. The relation of government to taxpayers in the United States has never been more abusive. Mother, may I?
Obama’s Pending Recission of Unions’ Duty to Report Expenditures
From Big Government comes the news that Obama and company are about to repeal rules that require mandatory reporting on expenditures by labor bosses. Â They are giving us eleven days during which to voice our objections, and this alteration will be retroactive, extending over the period during which unions have been legally compelled to file but have resisted so doing. Â In other words, unions are being rewarded for flouting the law.
By all means go to Regulations.gov and tell them what you think about this, but for the moment, at least, try to make it more polite than, "You fuckers have to get the fuck out of my fucking face," as hard as that may be. Â You'll find that their comment form requires a great deal of information, including regarding your employment, much more than is required in many places to vote. Â Strangely enough, they want the kinds of information about you--i.e., where you get your funding--that they wish to permit labor unions and their satellite political action organizations to obscure.
I would like to have the President explain to me why unions should be exempt as a matter of public policy from the duties of disclosure that apply to corporations and PACs, much less private citizens. Â I want to understand, from his own mouth, the "logic" behind such a policy, if he can.
Not unrelated is Michelle Malkin's report on how Pelosi and company intend to forward unused TARP funds to unions.
My email:
You know, it's amazing the amount of information that you want about me. Can you tell me how my employment is supposed to be relevant to my thoughts about this? Considering that you wish to make labor unions not have to comply with the kinds of reporting that the rest of us have to do, your intrusive questions are repulsively offensive. You require more information about us in this form than is required of most people in order to vote in Federal elections. If someone were to ask for a person's place of employment at a polling place, they'd be accused of intimidation. Considering also the fact that President Obama and his partisans want to extend the Census to cover non-citizens, this is doubly offensive. Can anyone explain to me why unions ought to be exempt from reporting what corporations and PACs have to report? Will the President go on TV and explain to voters why they should enjoy such an extraordinary exemption, particularly after their stonewalling?
Of course, it would be mere paranoia to connect such a maneuver to the Soros-funded attempt to have more prog-friendly Secretaries of State appointed, so that there can be more Minnesotas and NY23s, because wingers are attempting to steal elections.
On the 8th Day, The Bureaucracy Killed the Host
Yesterday I received this email from monster.com - I was immediately struck by how obnoxious it was to me.
The idea that civil servants are in all ways protected from the ebbs and flows of the economy - completely separated from the harsh realities of the marketplace - is a source of not just a little animosity by yours truly.

In terms of the massive make-work stimulus bill, Wisconsin for her part gets 2 years of additional teachers and 2 years of additional cops on the street paid for with federal tax dollars (subsequent years to be paid with state tax confiscations). It is not lost on me that the teachers union stands to gain. It is not lost on me that the police union stands to gain. But in what way do additional teachers and officers stimulate the economy? The short answer is that they don't. They neither create jobs or wealth. And in doing neither, the increasing numbers of both do nothing for the state and federal coffers - except of course decrease them.
The shovel-ready projects are also hand-outs to unions, whereby only union workers benefit. Sure there is arguably some stimulus that may occur in terms of bolstering those who feed at the government trough - materials come to mind. But here too, there is no real wealth created. No long-lasting investment being made whereby one could point to an actual return on investment.
The auto industry is said to have been bailed out. But let's be clear: the government put forth the notion that too many jobs were at risk to allow the manufacturers to fail. However, the only jobs that have been 'saved' are line jobs - union jobs. Professionals have lost their jobs. And with the retail auto dealership closings, retail professionals have also lost jobs. And continue to lose jobs as each dealership is closed.
Something is terribly wrong with the common presumption that any job is a good job. It is simply not the case. Some are worthy of existing - some are not. Some are attractive and some are not. But mostly this is not about jobs, per se. Rather, the Government's objectives are two-fold only: the Executive Branch is busy paying back the unions - at the literal expense of all of us. And the Executive Branch in collaboration with the Legislative is also involved in the fleecing of America, both for political payback and personal gain. Somewhere, lost to those who cling to the philosophy that Big Government can do little wrong is the fact that the Government does not create wealth. The Government creates nothing. And without creating wealth, the propping up of jobs for the sake of employing people only exacerbates the first problem: namely no wealth in the private sector - the only sector that actually creates anything - and the only sector which, ironically, contributes to the "common good" in many ways beyond, yet including, tax revenue from flagrant acts of creation... services, products, wealth, sales tax revenue, increasing living standards, options, competition, opportunity, etc.
And here is the rub: a government and its benefactors - the bureaucrats, affiliated unions, etc - can only flourish - not just survive - when it still represents a small portion of the workforce. There is a point at which the government's sheer size makes it unwieldy and exceedingly harmful to the host it is bleeding dry. And like a parasite, there is a fine line between living off of and killing the host. We have, in my estimation, surpassed that point some years ago. the only thing you can count on when it comes to bureaucracies is that they never, ever die. Even when the host is clamoring for breath, they cannot stop their impulse to grow ever bigger - always taking more - always feeding - never sleeping.
So back to the email from monster. It is obnoxious to me. It reminds me that in this nation, one is better served, fiscally-speaking, to feed at the trough - and not just when hungry, but as a matter of course. And not just to sustain oneself, but to gorge oneself... to fatten oneself without consideration of where the money comes from, who is creating it, who is going without.
It's enough to make an entrepreneur put away his hard work and pick up a postal route. Or become a union teacher. Or a union assembler. Or become a DMV bureaucrat. Or run a publicly funded day care. Because no one is tending the cash register. And the drinks are on the house. And you wouldn't believe the fringe benefits and job security you get for doing next to nothing. Creating nothing. Contributing nothing. Advancing nothing but the self. At the expense of your neighbor. Like a rabid raccoon that just won't f*cking die already.
It's enough to wonder what exactly I was thinking. Idiot me had visions of investing in myself, taking risks, creating wealth, employing people (creating opportunity for others in the form of jobs), contributing to the tax-base, improving the overall living standards in my neck of the woods - all while offering valuable and needed products and services. Living and dying on my ability to offer the best possible for the price the market would sustain.
Who knew I was just a glutton for punishment? My recommendation to my kids is to get a government job - one where you can't be fired - won't be expected to perform - one that provides luxurious bennies unheard of in the private sector. One with a path to retirement!

Oh to dream of the customer care I could get away with not providing. And you can even complain while you do it - about stress, understaffing, the scum you have to 'serve,' etc. But no worries the gravy train always comes on time. No one working for the government has been known to go without a paycheck. Ever.




