Mr Vogt, you obviously have not done your homework. Answer these questions
1. Do you enjoy your weekends?
2. Do you enjoy your medical benefits?
3. Do you enjoy your paycheck?
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, you can thank unions for them.
Your comments sound like they are "copy/paste" from the Tea Party manifesto so my question is are you really a Democrat?
I am angered by your comment "...sacrifice is the only way out of this fiscal mess", WRONG! Intelligence, smart decisions, common sense, and hard work is the way out. Your solution is like the ancient treatment of "bleeding" for disease, it didn't work then and it won't work now.

"...I’ve watched labor unions, particularly those representing teachers, reflexively fight against reforms that would increase accountability and limit benefits, I’ve found myself aghast at the unwillingness of so many public employees to sacrifice during lean budget times."

You have got to be kidding about asking public school teachers to sacrifice even more. Have you looked at the salary schedules lately? Do you have any idea of the workload, a huge amount of which is unpaid time, that school teachers take have to take on?

Putting aside the issue of accountability, which is a very large but separate topic, it is hard to imagine how you could be calling for public school teachers to sacrifice "even more."

@plcorne:

Public sector unions gave us the weekends? I don't think so. You should read the piece again.

The sacrifice many of us would like to see on the part of public sector employees is an end to the attitude of entitlement alluded to in this article. Why should government workers have the "right" to retirement at 65 (or earlier) with guaranteed pensions and medical coverage at a time when such benefits are almost unheard of in the private sector?

I'm a mid-40s state worker.
I recognize that we, as a country, have a lot to thank unions for.
I recognize that my union managed to get me a pay increase a few years ago to bring my salary to within 25% of the salary I would get in the private sector, and I am grateful for that.
And I'm a progressive democrat, but a fiscal conservative.

As far as this article goes, it is generalizing a lot.
The situation in each state differs w/r/t the pension situation and whether/not it is unfunded and if so, why. Just as the situation in each state differs in terms of whether unions do in fact have a lot of power. In CA and NY and IL, where the pension problems are HUGE, the unions are very strong and they did indeed win many concessions over the years.

In WA state, the state employee unions are not strong, and that is why a lot of state employees are angry that they are forced to pay dues, because it doesn't really get them much in return - though there've been a few isolated victories here and there, we've paid a lot of dues and often, the union leadership seems woefully out of touch; they reach out very rarely to the average state employee they represent, and because of the union leaders statements in the press, the taxpayers think state employees aren't willing to sacrifice etc. when in reality - they are. They do. They have. And they will some more. That may not be the case in other states, but it is most certainly the case here.

My main point is this - we don't want a race to the bottom, and partially, that's what we have due to the decline in organized labor in general (private sector mostly). But this article vastly overgeneralizes, as so many do. In WA state, the unions get blamed by citizens for being too powerful, by state employees for not being powerful enough. They're not remotely like those in CA or IL or NY.

This isn't Savage Love and this might not be the Letter of the Day, but I'll just make the analogy leap here; maybe Mr. Vogt is a Republican in denial.

..because liberal democrats are incapable of having fiscal sanity or recognizing state spending wrongs where they may exist?

I'm with Adam; I've always thought that people who want to strike have it wrong. If they have it so tough at their job, they really ought to go where they could get more instead of staying where they think it's so bad that they have to walk out. They are not chained to that "bad" job. This is a free country. They really should do themselves a favor and go where they think their skills will get them more. Or better yet---start your own company! Truly.
These days, people on strike actually have good jobs. The proof is that they aren't leaving for employment elsewhere. So the strike thing is a hoax.

Oh, and it's evident to many that unions are really just after the dues of the members, so the union bosses can live like fat cats at the expense of the workers. Figure it out. Then don't let them use you anymore.

"Public sector unions gave us the weekends?" considers @plcorne who won't admit public sector unions did indeed win the standard 5-day week. On Sundays the mill was turned off, mostly.

That's a republican in denial, Baker is probably right. Mr. Vogt's sentiments don't drift far from his personal ability to survive leading him to suspect failure is a personal failing. Isn't that what all fail to realize about each of our failed relations?

The doomsday clock was pushed back a whole 'fraction' of a minute this year. That's quite a bit. Expect Tea Party freakouts this year. (^:

Most of the nation's 100+ million private-sector workers are forced to accept 401(k) plans and other defined-contribution pensions -- in which the employer makes a fixed contribution to the employee's retirement account, rather than guaranteeing a fixed payout.

By contrast, nearly all of the more than 22 million federal, state and local public employees enjoy defined-benefit pensions -- with payouts fixed at some percentage of the individual's pay for the last year or two they worked (often including overtime and payments for unused sick or vacation days).

And while many of the 107 million private workers have seen their 401(k)s decimated by investment losses, public employees haven't had a hair on their heads touched. Because their pensions are fixed, when public-pension investments go south, the taxpayers have to make up the difference.

Private-sector workers will struggle through their old age with small 401(k) plans and reduced Social Security and Medicare benefits, while public-sector retirees live high on the hog thanks to their fixed pensions. But why should public workers get a free pass at the cost of the rest of us? We've got to bring public pensions into line with the vast majority of private pensions. They should all be converted to defined-contribution plans. That way, governments must pay as they go -- so there won't be unfunded pension liabilities the rest of us have to pay for.

I appreciate your passion but you do need a fact checker. Union dues are typically a percentage of wages in the 1-3% range, and voted on by members. FICA is 6.2% (except this year. Together these come to less than 10% and the reduction in take-home pay you describe is more like 38%. So you lost me on your first job.

Later you complain about workers who "look too young to retire" but you overlook that retirment of older workers serves younger workers' mobility.

As for teachers needing to make some sacrifices, tell me about that when the Bush tax cuts are sunsetted.

I am sorry, but when workers stand up and say they need a living wage, in my book the benefit of the doubt still goes with them.

Like many union members (I am one) I understand the concern about public sector workers.

They do have it too good. They work for a "company" that has no competition. If you shut down General Motors people could still shop at Ford or Chrysler. If you walked out on the government.....

Public service unions support candidates who will give them, and pass budgets that will pay for, what they want for their members. Not all candidates are willing to do that, just to get votes. Some are opposed to government excessive spending and entitlements.

Perhaps union contracts for public service workers should be put on the ballot, to be approved or turned down by the public taxpayers who will pay for these contracts.

Us private sector unionized workers are well aware of the advantages the government unionized workers have, and how they exploit them to their own gain, at the expense of all the taxpayers.

Oh come on - the government managers didn't have to always say "yes" to represented labor's representatives.

Heck, the government managers are MORE at fault.

What don't you get about that, Adam? Wagging your finger only at the unions makes you look dim.

Blue Dog Democrat (Adam Vogt) speaks!

He tells me that I should take a pay cut when the last three pay increases I have had as a teacher in this state dissolved into the ether of reduced benefits and increased health premiums. Net gain = Zero (negative actually).

Maybe I should go back to being a pipefitter in the days before my union threatened to strike over asbestos exposure and the toxic chemicals our overseers demanded we swim in each day. No Union = Asbestosis (No Thanks!)

Perhaps, as protest, I could work less than my current 50-60 hours per week for Mr. Vogt's reduced wages. After all, we teachers have some dignity left. However, that would probably get me fired under the new SEA contract where teachers are rated based on student performance on standardized tests. Work less = Increased Scrutiny = Fired (Oops...no protests by working to the contracted hours anymore).

Maybe I could give up civil service altogether, except that JFK keeps reminding me to, "Ask not..." Dang, I'm a liberal by indoctrination. I guess that makes me a Democrat. And, let's face it, Democrats are pro-union, against "the Man," and for the little people (Leona Helmsley abhors me).''

And so Adam...until you've spent a day busting asbestos lagging from pipe in a shipyard, worked twelve hours picking bush beans in the hot California sun, pulled a double-shift on the Green Chain in a Southern Oregon sawmill, I would ask that you set aside your balance-the-budget-on-the-backs-of-labor argument long enough to reexamine the current cost of Iraq and Afghanistan (and the debt service to China that these wars are costing you, me, and the rest of the shrinking middle class.

You are middle class aren't you?

Craig (Yellow Dog) Parsley

January 3, 2011

How I became an anti-Democrat union member

I became a Democrat in the late 60’s to support Eugene McCarty as he ran in the Primary to attempt to be the Democratic nominee for President. I worked night and day for McCarthy, walked precincts, raised money, and poured most of my time and all of my limited resources into that campaign. I BELIEVED!!!!!
Two weeks ago I changed Party! I’ve had enough! Some might say that I am a very slow learner to have taken more than 40 long years to see the light. Or more accurately to have the “light” go out.
The recent “tax gift” for the rich was my breaking point. At a time when our government is searching for enough funding to pass something close to a balanced budget, Democrats wrap a gift for those that don’t need it.

It is no secret that labor unions in the USA are largely responsible for its once, good sized middle class, Democrats ignore this middle class catalyst and offer more gifts, MORE WEALTH to those that don’t need it.

In recent years I’ve watched Democrats gladly accept the ground forces from any labor union wanting to help… Only to ignore all but the most simple request.

The number one request from working people, through their unions, in the last few years was labor law reform! Reform that would allow unions what early labor law promised but in recent years denied. Not only did nearly all Republicans ignore the real reform to rebuild the middle class but many Democrats did too.

I’m done! I’m going home with the people that brought me to the dance and many Democrats are just trying to cut in!

I am no longer a Democrat and that is one New Years resolution I WILL KEEP!

Shoreline, instead of bringing public employee pensions down to what the private sector gets away with, why don't we bring private sector pensions up to public sector standards?

A very unpersuasive piece about unions...of course it's a classic tactic of GOPs and the "I've Got Mine" conservatives to look at any program or concept and have a fit about the 10% to 20% of it which is no good, and so dismiss the 80% - 90% which is effective and worthwhile.

I started grad school at UW a few years after the TA strike, and I have to say that I greatly appreciated having medical coverage. By 2010, which was my final year as a student, I became increasingly concerned about how the school's budget shortfall was going to affect the goals current and prospective grad students. If an academic career is derailed in a recession because of cutbacks at the universities, it is likely ended for good. I didn't want to see that happen and so I refused to support all of the TA union's demands for protecting stipends.

What it all comes down to is that, while public sector unions can be too inflexible sometimes, what they ultimately want is a good shake for their members. The same can't be said for a lot of other people advocating on labor policy.

I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not a big fan of unions. However, unions for government employees probably wouldn't be necessary if every time there's a budget crunch legislators didn't go after employee pay and/or benefits to help solve the problem. WE aren't the problem! It's a revenue problem related to the services the legislature decided our state needs to provide its citizens. If those services are necessary, ALL of us should help solve the problem. In the state of WA, voters said they don't want to pay more taxes, but it's okay to reduce state workers pay and benefits. Wait! Isn't that a tax on state workers? It's okay to tax them, but not everyone else? I keep hearing state workers need to "share the pain". How is it sharing when we have over 90% employment in the state, but only those working for the state are being "taxed" at 5% or more (and we didn't get to vote on it) to reduce the budget deficit while the rest of the 90% do nothing? We're not like a business - we don't have a budget crisis because business is bad. We're providing services to more people than ever because more people need the help. We have more work to do, and we should take a pay cut? Get real! A 5% pay cut for state employees only saves a few million; a 1% increase in the sales tax, where EVERYONE helps, raises a BILLION!

kkt--The reason we can't bring private pensions to government pension standards--is that they are too expensive. No private company could afford to have employees retire at age 50 and then be on paid vacation for the next 35 years, as takes place in the government sector.

Adam Vogt is no Democrat. Period.

...why, because democrats are incapable of pointing out largesse when they see it? Can they never be allowed to be honest about the taxpayers getting screwed?

@Shoreline - Perhaps, then, they ought to unionize?

Public employees make less money than people with similar responsibility in the private sector. Except in rare cases, the fact they are employed in the public sector subjects them to professional and public scorn. True, their benefit packages and retirement programs are very often orders of magnitude above that available to unorganized private-sector employees. But that's balanced out by the general lack of sector mobility (how many private corps who don't deal with the public sector are excited to hire someone whose career has been only in the public sector)?

The media likes to play gotcha with public employees and are aided in that by our open disclosure laws. Private companies have no such rules, of course, and probably aren't an interesting story even if they did. Public agencies have the same proportion of lazy, rude, ineffectual, and stupid employees as private organizations of similar size.

Entertaining commentary. I love how I am castigated as a Tea Party supporter and a Republican. I guess that's accurate if working on the presidential campaigns of Obama ('08), Kerry ('04), Gore ('00), Bradley ('00), Clinton ('96 and '92), Dukakis ('88), and Gephardt ('88) makes me a Tea Party supporter and a Republican.

I consider myself an advocate of fiscal responsibility (not a conservative) and believe that Democrats, as the party that espouses a prominent role for government, ought to be the true party of fiscal responsibility. We have the most at stake! Clinton erased the longstanding image of Democrats as fiscal drunken sailors. George W. Bush created a new strand of conservatives who were advocates of "big government." Sadly, that role reversal has been erased in two short years.

And for the record, I'm making a distinction between public employees' unions and all other unions. There may have been a time when public employees were abused and forced to work 7 days a week and not given smoke breaks, but I'm not aware of it. That was, ummmm, private sector workers.

Adam, I'm glad there is at least one democrat who's willing to be honest about the dysfunction going on in state spending and talk about it. Seems republicans thus far before today have been the only ones who will talk about it. The dems have otherwise just asked the taxpayers to bend over.

What exactly is the value added for the taxpayers, for having public sector unions? Is the job done better? Are the employees better trained? Motivated to do the job as effiecently as possible? Are Public Sector Unionized employees more willing to be cross-trained? Take on additional responsiblities? Help out in other departments when times are tough?

Logically shouldn't Public Sector employees vote to decertify in order to get those coveted high paying private sector wage levels?

What the world looks like to a union member is what it SHOULD look like to EVERYONE. Union members don't have too much-- non-union members have too little. Don't tear down the economic justice unions strive for-- instead insist that it be expanded to everyone. Economic justice must be included as part of fiscal responsibility.

In the public sector, the employers are elected by the workers and their unions. They have a symbiotic, rather than adversarial, relationship. It's a clear a formula for disaster as any other dysfunctional human relationship. Unions have no business in government, except perhaps in unskilled labor.

I can't agree with the author's blaming of unions. He's apparently a life long Democrat who has worked on the campaigns of every Democratic President for 30+ years. But, he also claims to be a fiscal conservative. It is hard to reconcile the two positions. Democrats are and have been anything but fiscally responsible. (And, the same applies to Republicans!) When governors and legislatures in many/most states have adopted generous pension benefits for public employees and then turned around and failed to fund them who is to blame? How in the world is that fiscally responsible? When Presidents and Congresses pass tax breaks for the wealthy, enter into endless wars, or bail out banks, but fail to pay for them, who is to blame? How is that fiscally responsible?

A fiscally responsible politician of either party is about as rare as a winning lottery ticket.

When a private sector union negotiates with, say The Boeing Company, there is a clear line between management and stockholders on one side and the unionized workforce on the other. There is, as far as I know, no ownership position in Boeing by any of its unions. When the Washington State Governor negotiates with a public union the status of the two sides is much less clear. Even a Republican Governor will get some of his campaign contributions from public employee unions and, in the case of Governor Gregoire and her Democratic predecessors, public union contributions are significant. Even ignoring the vote of public employees, also significant, the negotiation between public employee unions and our public officials is not cleanly adversarial. I don't see this fact mentioned above but it should be part of any consideration of the proper place of public employee unions.

"How I became an anti-union Democrat"

By selling out? By mouthing the cliches and taking the public stances that curry favor with those people who might become your future employer or client?

Adam, it doesn't surprise me that you now live and work in the cesspool of corruption that is Washington D.C., a town where virtually everyone is looking to "make it" by saying and doing whatever it takes to garner the big bucks for the house in the "exclusive" areas and the nice, fancy beach house on the Maryland or Delaware shore.

It's fashionable to hate labor unions, particularly among those who wield power and money in DC. You're giving them what they want.

Aren't you ashamed of yourself? You should be.

One more thing: If you were only working 20 hours a week while a graduate student and teaching assistant, you were a slacker, not doing his job. Given what you've written, that doesn't surprise me.

One more thing, Adam:

Do you think the the rich elite should sacrifice as well? Or is "sacrifice" just for public employees and other working people?

Do you think it's good that the wealthiest 1% of our country holds 24% of the wealth, as opposed to the 9% they held in 1970, when unions were much stronger and had a much broader membership?

Do you think that Pentagon contractors---many of whom only have one customer, the US Government---should have to sacrifice too? Or not?

Isn't it time to grow up?

The national debate today is being defined by two groups of self-proclaimed victims:

1. The Tea Partiers who have been persuaded they are victims of Evil Big Government, and truly seem to desire a bare minimum of government and a completely free market. If they got their way, the USA would become a third world country.

2. The Progressives who have been persuaded they are victims of Evil Big Corporations, and truly seem to desire a highly regulated, just, fair world with benevolent bureaucrats as the arbiters and enforcers of everything fair. If they got their way, the USA would become a socialist nightmare that is non-sustainable, like Greece.

The biggest problem is that victims make lousy leaders, and pretty lousy followers too. They are buried in their holes too far to come up and see the big picture. They can't understand why everyone else does not agree with them. They don't trust politicians who don't want to give them everything they want.

I estimate the true victims on the right comprise about 20% of the population, as do the true victims on the left. That leaves 60% of the population to be the grown-ups to some degree and figure out some way to make this all work.

Isn't it time the grown-ups who can see the big picture got organized? Isn't it time our country grew up?

Could this be a start? http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7131587n

I thought I read somewhere, maybe the PI, that around 60% of the WA state budget was committed to paying its public union workers. Maybe someone can direct me to the data to confirm or deny this?

So, if it is true that 60% of the budget is protected from any input by the public, then don't the unions own the state government? I am not attempting to be inflammatory, but if true then we no longer have a state government that represents the public. It exists to insure the rights of the public employee unions.

The "employees" can't be doing better than the "employers". No one can argue that. So the taxpayers can't be sat on by the public employees. It's not right; it won't stand. This must be changed. Everyone can see that this kind of thing has gotten completely out of control and can't stand as is. The time for runaway govt. costs to be changed has come. The taxpayers are worse off than the public employees themselves. Can you say "unsustainable"??

Thank you, Adam! As a lifelong Democrat, I no longer feel like a loner in the party. Fiscal responsibility should be the cornerstone of the Democratic agenda. The more efficient and effective government operates, the more ludacris tea party and other small/anti-government folks' arguments become. This will require gutting some areas and making significant investment in others. Unions should not stand in the way of making critical reforms, but they do because they operate in their members' interest, not the publics.

In addition, we need to take a second look at elements of civil service. One issue in particular involves seniority. Civil service law, not union contracts, requires hiring and firing to occur on the basis of seniority instead of performance. If we want to find and retain talent in government, we must ensure performace is at least a consideration, if not the determining factor when making employment decisions.

Adam: You need to return to the section on "analytic thinking" in your degree program. When public unions first negotiated defined benefit plans, they were the norm throughout that part of the economy that had pension plans. The fact that such plans are no longer in favor does not mean they were initially a bad idea -- or that they are bad in principle. These plans became unsustainable when legislators,year after year, refused to allocate the funds to keep these programs solvent. There are lots of places in which to lay blame for this situation, but it is silly to say that unions solely are responsible.

Today, it looks as if government employees have it good. In most times, wage studies by independent bodies do not support the idea that they are well-paid compared to people with comparable skills in the private sector. Non-cash benefits are one way government has sought to remain competitive in the job market.

We're about to see substantial layoffs in state government, which perhaps will make you happier. The people who expected to get those services no longer provided may feel otherwise.

It's hard to blame union representatives for negotiating the best deal for their members. There are people who want to place exclusive blame for GM's problems on the UAW, but that presumes management never had a choice. Perhaps if we worked in an environment in which labor and management weren't adversaries there would be more incentive for organized labor to work for the greater good. But I'm not sure either side does that in our current workplace environment.

So once again pianoboy, why wouldn't the Public Sector Union membership vote to decertify if it means that they will be thrust into the competitive, market based salary schedules enjoyed by the private sector? No union dues and higher wages.

Pensions for state employees have devolved to half defined benefit/half defined contribution (like 401k), and tghe defined benefit is way less than "paid vacation." Salaries for state workers west of the mountains are often 25% less than pay for similar municipal jobs and are significantly less than most private sector jobs. And the salary schedule is the same if you live in Yakima or in Seattle, which is ridiculous. All of that used to be compensated by job security, benefits, and other intangibles. Speaking from experience, that's not the case anymore. So basically, at least for WA state workers, many of Mr. Vogt's facts are just plain wrong.

Whatever you have to tell yourself, Adam.

Btw, I have worked for plenty of Republican business owners, money is not red or blue, but green.
There are some pretty consistent themes and ideas that come directly from union ideals that go directly to the Democratic Party Platform, Adam.

Answer the question, why not go non-union at the State and give yourself an increase in salary and drop the union dues? If being in the union means you make 25% less than market and you whine about it when you have the mechanism to change it, who is really at fault here?

“Anti-union” and “Democrat” should be self-canceling contradictions. Unfortunately, that’s not the case in today’s world. Pro-corporate Blue Doggers and Road Killers often echo the anti-worker bleatings of their GOP bunkmates.

Look, I’m 70. You might say I’ve been around the block a time or two. I performed demanding labor all my working life. In all my years I’ve discovered I have zilch to learn from coiffed and manicured bureaucrats who don’t know what it is like to work for a living. Oh, and I worked in the private sector.

The next time you hear some scissor bill like Vogt whine that public employees (teachers, social workers, etc., etc……….) are a drain on taxpayers remind him that every time private sector employees get wage increases, or when their employers pay more for health care or pensions, those new costs are passed along to consumers. That's Capitalism 101!

Some people think everyone is fair game except them. As long as their ox isn’t being gored they see no problem scapegoating others. Talk about hypocrites!

Two-bit politicians and their right wing apologists are trying to pit worker against worker. It’s truly sad that some people are falling for that divide and conquer baloney. It’s downright shameful!

And remember, public employees are taxpayers and consumers too!

The real reasons states are feeling pinched is because discretionary federal funds for states and municipalities are being diverted into the bank vaults of war profiteers and the wealthiest 2%, courtesy of the Bush tax cut extensions.

The real reasons states are feeling pinched is because discretionary federal funds for states and municipalities are being diverted into the bank vaults of war profiteers and the wealthiest 2%, courtesy of the Bush tax cut extensions.

OMG this statement is riddled with so many leftist assumptions!

I'm with Mark, I'd like you to explain how you ended up paying almost 40% of your paycheck to Social Security and the union when nobody else does.

ArrowSmith

Might I direct you to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

Your "leftist assumption" malarkey is pure Heritage Foundation newspeak. Besides, there is no left vs. right debate in our nation. It is empathetic vs. sociopathic.

There's a reason Chrysler and General Motors tanked and needed to become wards of the government. There's a reason Obama felt the need to spend our money to prop up companies that with management and union hand in hand happily built some of the worst vehicles in the world. That money was rightfully earmarked for the 2%ers.

Besides, there is no left vs. right debate in our nation. It is empathetic vs. sociopathic.

— RichardAustin

Wrong again. It's really parasites vs. the hosts.

Djinn

"It's really parasites vs. the hosts."

And the "parasites" just got a tax gift renewed and added!!!!

Djinn -

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, AIG, etc., etc. are non-union (actually anti-union). What excuse[s] are you offering for their malfeasance?

More to the point, when you enter a debate you had better bring more than just rhetoric. It is usually useful to have a bit of history under your belt.

GM, as an example, manufactured about 50% of all the autos sold in the US in the 50’s. In order to protect their monopoly hold on the market they needed a constant supply of new cars. GM made the decision to pay its workers decent wages, and provide decent benefits. They figured that by doing so their workers would be content and supply would be assured. It worked for a good long while, and other auto manufacturers followed suit.

What those corporations did not do, however, was properly fund the health care and pension benefit plans they had initiated. Instead of paying their stockholders a fraction less in dividends and then using the reserves to properly fund the plans, they tossed that money to wealthy investors – both foreign and domestic.

When the automakers got their structured bailouts in 2008, part of the requirement for receiving the money was getting the workers to scale back wages and benefits. (In contrast, the honchos running non-union, anti-union financial institutions had no “strings” attached to their taxpayer-funded bailouts.)

And the wealthy stockholders and their heirs? They were the winners, but at the expense of the workers. They were not asked to pitch-in to help save the companies that had handed them generous dividend checks over they years. They were not called on to return even a smidgeon of the dough that should have gone into funding health care and pensions.

After the current economic crisis is over, one constant will remain: The rich will have entered it wealthy and will emerge wealthy. Only working stiffs will have suffered.

Anyone who fails to acknowledge that the game is rigged in favor of the super-rich is either ill-informed or disingenuous.

I’ve owned and enjoyed several US manufactured vehicles over the years. They were made by skilled union autoworkers. They were not “some of the worst vehicles in the world”. I am going on practical experience. It trumps rhetoric every time.

Globalism is this: Build it cheap and sell it for plenty. To hell with patriotism. The only allegiance capital has is to the bottom line. And Washington, D.C. is loaded with lawmakers beholden to that immoral economic system. Wake up! The 2%'ers you are protecting would toss you under the bus if it meant having a few more coins in their pockets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/09/15/VI2010091501504.html

http://www.theonion.com/articles/something-about-tax-cuts-or-earnings-or-money-or-s,18169/

Love it, jmrolls!!!!! Great stuff.

On the off chance that anyone is still reading this, I strongly support progressive taxation and oppose Obama's extension of the tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 per year. I also believe in a hefty estate tax- income and asset inequality are major problems in the U.S. I don't want our country to become like Great Britain.

Shoreline posted: "No private company could afford to have employees retire at age 50 and then be on paid vacation for the next 35 years, as takes place in the government sector."

Like hell it does. As a state employee, I can tell you we don't get to retire at 50, and our retirement would be pretty meager with less than 35-40 years of service. Maybe you're talking about active-duty military, who have early retirement because of their physical fitness requirements? Or maybe you're just repeating a bunch of lies you heard on talk radio?

Unions are needed in the public sector due to how some bosses treat their staff. Having a union is a measure of protection. However, it comes at a cost, for unions believe in paying everyone on the same scale and with the same increases. They choose "longevity" over "merit," and that costs the state's taxpayers dearly. Unless an employee embarrasses the agency they work in, they are treated like a volunteer: whatever they want to do, that's what they're allowed to do. If they can't, or won't, more staff is hired. The first and every other employee is granted any COLA pay increase every 12 months plus, until they reach the top of their pay grade - 120% of average - a "longevity" pay increase, which for classified state staff is 5% every 12 months. Since inflation has been well below this and has been for awhile, that puts pressure on non-personnel expenses to be cut. As long as growth in tax revenues exceed expenses, no problem. Meanwhile, innovation and productive employees have an incentive to do the minimal, for there is no premium for merit. That's because it's also not uncommon for a less productive but long-standing staff member to be making tens of thousands of dollar more than a more productive but newer staff member. This type of pay system does not tend to exist in the private sector, where pay based on "merit" is the rule, and one's lucky if that beats inflation. Irregardless, it seems that the taxpayer has reached their breaking point as far as more taxes, and they might have reached it sooner had they known about this, but the media for some reason declines to report on a system that they themselves don't have in their jobs as a reporter. The ideal would be market pricing of state classified jobs - they tend to be on the low side - having anything above inflation be based on merit, and only allowing those rated higher than average to be paid more than the midpoint of their pay ranges. But, I doubt the unions - which tend to protect the least productive - would ever go for this...but it would save the state taxpayer a bundle in payroll and pension costs, and fewer employees would be needed.

ddmiller wrote: "Public employees make less money than people with similar responsibility in the private sector."

Since when?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
.

Steven Pearlstein of the Wash Post seems to agree with me- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011107237.html

Mr. Vogt is a "former political speechwriter."

I find no reason to listen seriously to a former political speechwriter.