One of the viewpoints seldom mentioned in the mainstream media's malingering and methodical mustering of support for anything government; anything union and anything entitlement related has to do with our topic today. TheFundamentals would conjecture that you, our readers, have not missed out on the simple point that taxpayer money paid for pensions to millions of government retirees is not available for buying goods and services that are needed by "public service" recipients. Now that is a rather combobulated way of saying that even if you are a big or even a medium supporter of government programs and handouts and stimulus deals and other “public service” things that government employees says they are doing for you, then you would be at the head of the line demanding that your taxpayer funds are going to be spent on all those programs and activities and not directed into the hands of pension recipients. Unless, of course, you think that there is an endless supply of more and more taxpayer funds. Even the simplest thinker in the media and in government employ can grasp that priorities must be set and priorities would seem to favor the goods and services over the pensions.
But we don’t hear that argument in the media other than from a few combative governors, who are trying to cut back on wages, benefits and pensions so that services can receive top priority. What services you say? Well, how about education services and how about road maintenance and how about infrastructure building and how about water systems and sewage systems and how about public transportation and how about special care for the many needy children and handicapped citizens and just plain suffering humans in our neighborhoods and hospitals and community centers? At TheFundamentals, we support helping the needy and being good care givers to those without alternatives. We just happen to think that providing such goods and services is a much greater priority than funding collective bargaining agreements and phenomenally rich pension programs that have found their genesis in said “bargaining agreements.”
So, the question to our friends who are so adamant in their upraised voices for union positions on matters of employment, wages, benefits and, most of all, pensions is, “Do you think there is an endless source of funding for both services and pensions and, assuming you agree that there are not, what are your priorities – services or pensions?” See this article in the Sarasota newspaper in which, apparently, the very wealthy fantasy and science fiction writer, Stephen King, does think that you can have it all: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110309/BREAKING/110309471 We say to folks like Steve – go for it. In your fantasy world you may not need to set priorities. Send in your own money if you think there is no problem with supporting everything with no priority setting. Remember this website? https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454 It's for people like Steve who want to spend their own money to pay down the US debt. How much have you sent in recently, Steve? But, for the rest of us who set priorities in our lives, our priorities for tax payments are goods and services; not pensions.
If you have followed our many essays on this topic, you know that setting priorities is a fiscal fundamental. We all set priorities. Some make a Mercedes Benz in their garage a priority. Some are happy with a car that starts and runs. Usually, not always, the priority we set has something to do with our available resources. We always seem to come back to this resource issue. Now, at TheFundamentals, we say no to borrowing and no to printing currency. We do understand that there is a group out there, on both sides of the political spectrum, that do not embrace this fundamental. But most of us do accept the basic concept of the need to make choices.
So, what is your choice? If we can't have it all, do we prefer goods and services over pensions? At TheFundamentals, we support goods and services over pensions. Where do you stand?
1 comment:
I strongly agree that our tax dollars should be budgeted to help those who can't help themselves, such as those individuals with disabilities. The government is no different than adults because both need to budget effectively and live within their means. As adults, we need to learn to say NO to unrealistic budgeting activities.
I don't blame union members for negotiating and using collective bargaining to improve their working conditions and wages. Unions for non-government workers have served a purpose in protecting workers rights when businesses create unfair working conditions and low wages for an honest days work.
However, I do agree with the two "Roosevelts" who believed that government workers should NOT have the right to unionize because it creates a counter productive system whereby the general public is not well served. Most elected politicians won't say no to union bosses so endless unrealistic wage and benefit increases spiral out of control. This is exactly what has happened on the national, state and local ("Joliet") level. I blame politicians who can't say NO when the system gets turned upside down and government union workers end up with better wages & benefits than private enterprise workers. I think the solution is NOT to outlaw collective bargaining, but to learn to just say NO!
Post a Comment