[quote=jstoesz]Come on CAR…These goals are not mutually exclusive. Just because we bailed out the financials, which I was against from the start does not mean that we should avoid the public sector problem. They are completely unrelated as far as the burden to the taxpayer/state is concerned. Do them both, but if you can only politically do one, than do one! If I were faced with an either or decision, it would be to kill the bankers, but that is not my decision…unilaterally of course.
The public unions have to go. if it makes good economic sense to pay firemen outlandish wages, than it will be so (as you claim). An accountable, fiscally speaking, government will make it so. But the unions are not the ones we should be looking to for responsible wages. We should be looking to what the market can bear. And if the market determines that adequate pay for fireman is 1XXk per year than an accountable government can pay that. Maybe I live in a fantasy land, but that makes sense to me.
As for the bankers, string them up.
Come on CAR stop holding the bankers as your hoop to jump through before addressing all the other state budget issues. I don’t think CA had a hand in TARP. So stop linking the two. They are two independent indiscretions that need to be dealt with independently.[/quote]
But what you seem to be missing is that they are NOT separate. One caused the losses of the other.
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
The reason these employees entered public service is often because of the benefits and relative security of the job. Public service is not like private enterprise, and the pay and benefits are not like those found in private enterprise. If they wanted to work in private industry, they would be doing so. Likewise, if you like the pay and benefits of the public sector, you should have applied for a job. Many of these employees left better paying jobs in the private sector for the stability of the public sector — and that includes the more stable pay/benefits during downturns. These public servants sacrificed during the good times. Now, as their choices are about to pay off, you think they should have those benefits taken away. Some people have a problem with that.
EVERYONE had the option to take those jobs, but decided to do something else, instead. It’s not an exclusive club (like it is in the financial sector). Public employers to go great lengths to ensure equal access to all qualified candidates. The notion that nobody else should get something just because you don’t doesn’t fly. YOU made the choice not to join a union, so don’t blame it on them when they get what they fought for over many, many years.
