MEMO TO LIBERAL IDEOLOGUES: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS
True liberal ideologues in the state legislature, you are agonizing over the needed cuts in state government programs because you believe in a healthy "social contract" between the people and their government. You believe to your core that in America, everyone is entitled to a standard of living that, for some, must be provided in total or in part by the government. You believe that it is right and good for those who have benefited financially from America’s free market system to "bring up" those in this country who really never have or will have the ability to pull themselves up. Victims of society, as you refer to them, need protection and assistance from those who can afford to provide it. I don’t agree with this philosophy, but I "get it" and understand that it is a valid, if flawed, point of view.
If you are one of these ideologues, then you really need to step back and look at the out of control state public employee unions. If you presuppose that there is a limited amount of revenue to fund state government programs, then it only makes sense that there is a competition for limited resources. Do available tax revenues go towards programs, and direct assistance to those in need (as you like to say, our most "vulnerable" citizens)? Or do those programs go to continued increases in the salaries and benefits of state employees?
Thanks to the increased power and political might of the unions, public funds are being used to create a whole new class of upper-income, wealthy people — all from their careers in public service. Recently the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility posted an online database revealing specific information on over 5,000 CalPERS pensioners who are taking in lifetime retirement benefits of over $100k a year (in many case, a lot more than that). Just think about it, for someone in the private sector to have that kind of guaranteed income, they would literally have to have a couple million bucks sitting in a bank account, and draw from the interest.
So as the state’s fiscal crisis gets worse, and as an ideologue on the left, you are forced to cut CalGrants, CalWorks and so many other programs that you consider not only vital, but morally necessary, ask yourself if perhaps those cuts wouldn’t be nearly as bad if the cost to deliver these services, due to outrageous costs of financing the state workforce (both during and after their service in state government) weren’t so outrageously high.
Perhaps there can be a coming together of the left and the right here? Maybe it’s time for Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner and Assemblyman Martin Garrick to head up a bipartisan task force to bring down the costs of the state workforce. Skinner, a product of Berkeley liberalism would want to do this to "free up" funds for social programs. Garrick, a veteran of the Reagan Administration, would want to do this to bring down tax rates. Seems to me that there is a common starting point… A leaner and more efficient state government that can reduce its costs of delivering services.
STEINBERG’S QUIXOTIC QUEST FOR VOLUNTARY PAY CUTS
I am trying to figure out the significance of this latest request from Senate President Darrell Steinberg to ask all State Senators to take a voluntary pay cut of 5%. Some Senators had already taken voluntary cuts prior to Steinberg’s request — others are now doing so. But I am trying to figure out why, frankly, it matters? Are state legislators overpaid? Well, probably not for the job they actually have — which is a full time gig. Now I support a part-time legislature with part-time pay — but I am not so mean as to say that you shouldn’t get paid a full time salary for a full time job.
Now wait a second, perhaps the ideal behind Steinberg’s request is to demonstrate to state workers that if they have to take a 5% pay cut, well legislators should as well. But, wait — Steinberg is opposed to state employees taking across the board cuts. State employees have a furlough day — but what is that? An unpaid holiday. I want state employees to get paid less to do more — not get paid less to do less.
I would actually be much more pleased if instead of spending a lot of time trying to convince his colleagues to take a 5% pay cut, they would support one for all state employees. Because that represents actual, meaningful savings for the state that can be applied to the budget problem. This silly "drill" of asking legislators to voluntarily cut their pay is actually kind of annoying.
I suppose next we’ll see a letter from Steinberg to every state employee, asking them all to voluntarily cut their pay by 5%? I’m sure that would be very effective (not).
Care to comment on what you just read? Do so here on the FR Blog.