Obama’s 3 new Exec Orders: Signs of what’s to come?
February 6, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, Money, Records documentation, Special Report, policies
President Obama recently signed three Executive Orders focusing on labor laws. The orders might give HR and employers some insights into the President’s overall plan, especially as it pertains to unions.
The good news is that, for now, the orders apply only to federal contractors. (Of course, if you’re a federal contractor, then the news isn’t so good.) Law-employment analysts are picking the orders apart to figure out if they provide some sign into what’s coming — for everyone.
Here are the details of the three orders:
Economy in Government Contracting
The order prohibits federal contractors from spending federal funds to persuade employees to reject union representation. For instance, an employer can’t spend the money to:
- prepare or distribute informational materials
- hire or confer with legal counsel or consultants
- hold meetings or plan or conduct anti-union activities by managers or supervisors during work hours.
The law states that contractors can use federal dollars to “maintain satisfactory relations” between the contractor and its employees — by, for instance, supporting labor-management committees, employee publications (provided they do not attempt to persuade employees regarding unionization) and other related activities.
Here’s the tricky part. If an employer’s revenues come only via federal contracts, the matter is cut and dried because any money is federal money and can’t be used for anti-union activities. But if employers also have nongovernment business, they’ll have to set up accounting procedures to earmark which money comes from where and how it is used.
Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers under Service Contracts
This order details rights for employees of federal contractors when a contract changes hands. So, all new federal service contracts covered by the Service Contract Act must now contain a provision granting employees of a federal contractor that has lost the service contract the right of first refusal for employment with the new contractor. The new contractor can’t hire new employees, other than management and supervisors, until all employees of the previous contractor have been offered employment.
Notification of Employee Rights under Federal Law
This revokes President Bush’s Executive Order 13201 requiring federal contractors to post a notice in the workplace informing employees of their rights to resist unionization as detailed in a Supreme Court case, Communication Workers of America v. Beck.
In that case the court held, among other rulings, that all non-union members (in agency shops in right to work states) and financial core members (in union shops in non-right-to-work states) will not have to pay fees to unions other than for the purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment. The executive order doesn’t reverse the decision in Beck, but it will replace the notice required under the Bush Administration. The Labor Department has 120 days to come up with a new notice.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I sent this on to our President last night and asked him how he could continue to support a union environment that creates this type of situation – perhaps even more troublesome than the current financial problems we are trying to endure/ fix.
Forbes.com
Gilt-Edged Pensions
Stephane Fitch 02.16.09
Don’t let anyone tell you the American dream has faded. the truth is the U.S. is still minting lots of millionaires. Glenn Goss is one of them.
Goss retired four years ago, at 42, from a $90,000 job as a police commander in Delray Beach, Fla. He immediately began drawing a $65,000 annual pension that is guaranteed for life, is indexed to keep up with inflation and comes with full health benefits.
Goss promptly took a new job as police chief in nearby Highland Beach. One big lure: the benefits.
Given that the average man his age will live to 78, Goss is already worth nearly $2 million, based on the present value of his vested retirement benefits. Looked at another way, he is a $2 million liability to Florida taxpayers.
“When I got the job at 21, I knew it was a dangerous profession but that I’d be rewarded on the back end,” says Goss. Even so, he adds, “The benefits back then weren’t anywhere near what they’ve become today.”
The problem with this picture is not Glenn Goss. By all accounts he was a good cop. The problem is that there are millions of Glenn Gosses from Highland Beach to Honolulu. So many that they pose a vast, debilitating burden to state and local finances.
They’re creating a nasty social problem as well. America, in case you hadn’t noticed, is dividing into two nations. The 22.5-million-strong public sector (that includes retirees) is growing ever larger, and enjoying ever greater wages and benefits often guaranteed by state constitutions.
In private-sector America your job, assuming you still have one, hangs on the fate of the economy. If your employer ever offered a pension for life, like young officer Goss is receiving, odds are it has stopped doing so, or soon will. Those retirement accounts you scrimped and saved to assemble? Unless they are invested in Treasurys, they aren’t doing too well. In private-sector America the math leads to the grim prospect of working longer and living poorer.
In public-sector America things just get better and better. The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector’s $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42%.
For New York City’s 281,000 employees, average compensation has risen 63% since 2000 to $107,000 a year. New Jersey teaching veterans receive $80,000 to $100,000 for ten months’ work. In California prison guards can sock away $300,000 a year with overtime pay.
Four in five public-sector workers have lifetime pensions, versus only one in five in the private sector. The difference shifts huge risks from government to private-sector workers.
NYC socked away $20,000 per employee last year for pension benefits. Since 2000 its pension funding bill has risen ninefold, from $615 million to $5.6 billion in 2008. That’s more than the city spends on transport, health care, parks, libraries, museums and City University of New York combined, says the Citizens Budget Commission.
These benefits are so sacrosanct, and such a source of union power, that labor bosses have turned them into the third rail for NYC politicians–touching them is suicide. That goes for the benefits not only of existing workers but of future ones as well.
“We have far less to spend on core services, such as public safety, education, parks and senior centers,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote in December of the city’s pension costs. “That defies common sense, and it’s hurting our city.”
Despite its huge contributions, New York City’s five pension plans had only 74% of what actuaries said a year ago they need to pay future benefits. The recent financial meltdown lopped another 30% off the funds’ value. If markets fail to roar back, taxpayers will have to save the day. After all, public pension benefits are enshrined in law. Don’t you wish your 401(k) was?
Around the nation states, cities and their workers typically kick in a set amount to fund defined benefit pensions. The remainder, it is assumed, will come from investment returns of 8% to 8.5% annually. Often, however, the kitty comes up short.
The recent market meltdown erased $1 trillion from municipal pension funds, Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research figures. That has left the average public plan 35% underfunded. With benefits inexorably rising, the shortfall will balloon to 41% by 2013 if stocks and bonds stay at current levels, representing an unfunded liability of roughly $1.7 trillion, according to the Boston College center.
That’s a lot less than Social Security’s $11 trillion unfunded liability. But the feds have lots of wiggle room to lessen their burden by, say, raising the age at which you become eligible to draw benefits. Most public employees’ benefits, by contrast, are set in stone.
“The tax hikes you face [to fully fund public pensions] will have a much more tangible impact on your financial life than anything a Social Security fix will entail,” says Alicia Munnell, who runs Boston College’s retirement center.
Cops and firemen initially were granted early retirement because their work was physically demanding and they tended to die young. These days they live as long as everyone else, but early retirement lives on for an ever expanding pool of public workers. So do liberal disability rules. Nevada law 617.457 decrees that heart disease among uniformed safety workers is job-related. The medical reality, says the American Heart Association, is that a fireman gets heart disease from diet, lack of exercise or genes, not from dashing into burning buildings. Still, veteran Las Vegas firemen hobbled by heart disease can collect an inflation-protected $40,000 a year for life on top of their pension. That applies even if they’re healthy enough to work in another occupation.
Michael Hirth, a 55-year-old fireman in Hallendale Beach, Fla., has a nifty deal known as a Deferred Retirement Option Program. It enables public employees to “retire” and stay in their old jobs. Hirth is receiving both a pension and a salary for the same job. He’s even allowed to direct income from the pension into a fund that guarantees an 8% return as long as he works. (The only way ordinary folk get guaranteed returns is with something backed by the U.S. Treasury. Treasurys pay 0% to 3%.) If the fund fails to achieve that hurdle, taxpayers will just have to kick in the difference.
Steven Beatty is the kind of social studies teacher you hope your kid gets. The Bridgewater, N.J. high school instructor has a solid command of history, took grad school courses on his own time and clearly loves teaching. But Beatty isn’t in it just for the students. At 38 he earns $80,000 a year, nearly double New Jersey’s average, and pays only 5.3% of that toward his pension. He can retire at 60 with full benefits and, should he so desire, continue teaching part-time.
Such pampering helps explain New Jersey’s infamy as the most taxed state in the nation. Taxes are almost certain to go even higher, thanks to a bipartisan tradition of caving in to public employees’ pension demands and then not funding them. Republican Governor Christine Todd Whitman played the game in the 1990s by using rosy investment-return projections to justify skipping two years of pension contributions. Her successor, Democrat James McGreevey, kept the practice going.
A few weeks ago Governor Jon Corzine, another Democrat, proposed that the state slash pension contributions to less than half of what actuaries say it needs because, well, times are tough. He didn’t mention that the move will dump the cost on voters well after he runs for reelection this year. New Jersey is $52 billion, or 45%, short of what it should have on hand to cover pensions already earned. That doesn’t include the retiree health care coverage the state is on the hook for.
All this would be infuriating enough if public employees were merely retiring with pensions that paid out a reasonable percentage of their working wages. Instead, they have found legions of ways to boost payments well beyond those levels. In New York, Philadelphia and several other cities police officers rack up huge amounts of overtime in their last two or three years on the job to goose the base pay used to calculate lifetime pension benefits.
Florida goes a step further. In Palm Beach and two other nearby counties, cops count work as security guards for Wal-Mart and other moonlighting toward public pension benefits. The private employers contribute the same portion of gross pay to pension benefits as do local governments. Taxpayers, of course, are the ones at risk if those contributions don’t yield the expected investment returns, or unions and pols jack up benefits even further.
Florida’s state pension plan was fully funded a year ago. Now it’s at least $28 billion, or 22%, in the hole. “Taxpayers are on the hook,” says Susan Mangiero, who maintains Pensionriskmatters.com, a blog highlighting pension plan issues.
Until a few years ago Illinois permitted police to receive “sergeant for a day” promotions in which they were bumped up a pay grade the day before they retired and their pension calculated on the basis of that final salary. With pensions seriously underfunded in 2003, recently arrested and impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich rolled the dice and issued “pension obligation bonds.” The idea was that Illinois would issue debt at a cost of 5.1% and then earn 8.5% or so investing the proceeds. The plan turned into a disaster when the market tanked last year. Now short roughly $60 billion, Illinois has barely half of what it needs to cover future pension obligations.
Illinois’ cavalier practices in investing the contributions entrusted to it by public employees and taxpayers doesn’t help. Like many other states, maximizing bang for the buck is only one factor in making investment decisions. Do-gooder causes matter, too. In Illinois public funds are required to give a certain percentage of assets to “emerging” (meaning minority) money managers. In many other states “economically targeted investments,” like low-income housing and job creation, take precedence.
When misguided policies lead to extreme underfunding, public employees are often left feeling as victimized as taxpayers. Chicago police Sergeant Michael Murphy, 41, is a third-generation cop whose grandfather was killed in the line of duty. Murphy works on an antiterrorism task force and narrowly missed being shot himself 16 years ago. He plans to retire at 55 and draw 75% of his salary. If he makes lieutenant it would top $70,000 a year.
The fly in this ointment is that the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago is only 35% funded. This despite the fact that Murphy and other Chicago cops contribute 9% of salaries and the city matches that nearly two-to-one. The city is pressuring police union boss Mark Donahue to swallow pension cuts. Murphy is outraged.
“I made a pact with the city when I was 23,” he says. “I put my life on the line. You keep your promise to me when I retire.”
Don’t shed too many tears for public employees, says Gary Clift, a 52-year-old Californian who speaks with an insider’s authority. Clift spent 26 years working for the state’s Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, retiring in 2006. He’s now collecting 78% of the $112,000 salary he earned before stepping down and full health care coverage for life. Clift is thinking about using some of the public’s largesse to write a book about the outrageous ways public employees milk California.
Clift holds special vitriol for a state program that lets employees retire and return to work part-time as “consultants.” Some of the “retired annuitants,” known as retired irritants to full-timers, deliberately get themselves laid off to collect unemployment pay without having to even show up, Clift says.
Near the end of his career Clift spent two years in the Department of Corrections’ Sacramento headquarters analyzing legislation. The office’s mandate was to provide the governor with insights into how proposed laws would affect the giant prison system. Not surprisingly, Clift says his colleagues took another agenda more to heart: doing their union’s bidding and heading off anything that hinted at job cuts or lower salaries. Clift says he was the only manager at his former prison that he is aware of who didn’t put in for disability on retiring.
The prevailing attitude, according to Clift: “It’s just taxpayers’ money, so nobody cares.”
There is, of course, a simple solution to the public pension boondoggle: Let government workers make do with the same 401(k)-style pensions as the rest of us. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed as much in 2006. Public-employee unions ran radio ads featuring widows of gunned-down cops opposed to the plan. The Terminator didn’t stand a chance.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Welcome to the socialization of America.
This government pension system is a racket and is being played to the hilt. By the time I am able to collect on mine it appears it will have evaporated.
Your current 401K is going to be taken over by the federal government anyway and you will no longer control that money very shortly.
There is a bill coming up in Congress to remove the two term limit for the President as well. Think it won’t get passed? Guess again.
Our democracy is in the stage between apathy and complacency with over 40% of actual citizens (not counting illegal aliens who will blossom to 50 Million shortly) on the public teat. Is there any real surprise we are out of money.
America and the principles it was founded upon are just about gone. Can’t wait to see what the “surprise” is going to be that Joe Biden alluded to in December…..
General Electric is going to be the first large corporation nationalized by our government…
February 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I am not surprised by President Obama’s Executive Orders. His election was bought partially by contributions from labor unions and he has to pay them back. The problem is that, at the state and local level, these public employee unions will bankrupt the state’s economies. The results will be far worse than the financial diificulties caused by generous pensions and other benefits of the nation’s auto makers.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Jim
This president will continue to throw money, legislation, and exec. orders to the unions for two reasons: 1) its part of the old Chicago payback plan – and he’s neck-deep in debt there and 2) he truly believes in the Socialist agenda where the “state” controls everything and everybody.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Hmmm, let me get this straight. A company loses a federal contract because they fall behind schedule due to shoddy workmanship. Then, the new contract holder has to rehire the same workers that caused the other company to lose the contract. Sounds like a GREAT plan to me!!!
February 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Tom is correct…..and these unions will survive because Obama will need these public servants to enforce his agenda upon all the other people going forward.
Sounds like Germany and Italy all over again…we even have high profile scapegoats….the free press (radio and some cable news) that are being demonized because they don’t fall in lockstep with the dismantling of our democratic way of life. When was the last time you heard an American President urge Americans to ignore the first amendment right to criticize him as this president has?
So for now, these public pensions will remain sacrosanct while the rest of us fall into the lowest income levels in short order to make control an absolute. Don’t forget the election payback to Acorn – $4Billion at last count. The words of wisdom below will help explain….
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of
freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work
for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the
government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get
the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take
care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work
because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend,
is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Late Dr. Adrian Rogers 1931-2005
February 9th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Jim. Mark, and Tom-you are all dead on with your comments. You must help fight this nonsense! Write and call your Congressional representatives and let them know how angry you are with this gradual socialization of America. In the interest of “doing good for all” they do good for no one. Tell your friends and set the example of arguing against this type of fascism. If you don’t, no one will! Get involved now or next year may be too late.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Mark,
Removing the two term limit for the President would require a Constitutional Amendment. In order to amend the Constitution a bill must pass both houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority in each house and then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Removing the two term limit for the President is highly unlikely.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I sent the same article on to our governor here in New York – nothing in his proposed budget deals with entitlements – he is afraid to deal with the unions (or endeared to them). Instead, he proposes yet more taxes on the public to pay for these incredible benefits and retirement plans. I suggested to him that the level of unemployment for state workers should be brought into line with that of the private sector – that would immediately close the budget gap. Why should we pay for full employment of the state workforce when we ourselves are subject to and have been impacted by the economy?
February 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I don’t know why I bother reading this garbage. I guess its for pure entertainment. Obama has been in office less than a month. Do you think that 8 years of Bush’s incompetent leadership is going to be reversed in a month? Do you think Obama will be successful in reversing the meltdown in the economy by continuing Bush’s and Cheney’s fiscal fumbles? Bush just gave away 350 billion dollars and nobody knows where it went. Evidently more bonuses and jets for executives of failing companies. Republicans should not talk about “buying” elections. George Bush was not even elected to his first term, big oil and defense contractors had to “buy” the Supreme Court to get him in office.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
When did this site become a site for personal and political venting? This is an excellent site for information. Please don’t let it become a site for expressing bitterness.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am
What business owner wants to make money? No one, because they will have to pay into this abomination we call “democracy”. Government is like 20% of our economy. 70 years ago it was only 3%. If our economy is doing lay-offs and slow-downs, shouldn’t our government work on getting smaller also?
February 9th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Oh but its fine to fill it up with tirades and “predictions” about socialism? Seems the personal and political venting has been overwhelmingly one sided.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:50 am
22nd Amendment in fact.
Well the bill is on the way…looks like the HR folks are being moved outside their comfort zone again…..John is also correct…where did the money go…and if we can’t find $350Billion why is Obama rushing us into spending $900Billion now….because if we look closely at where the money is going we will see it is going toward “spending” just before his next election – not now where it might be needed – or where he promised.
It also is for social engineering projects like abortion and birth control in Africa ($450M)….what in heck does that have to do with economic stimulus? Nothing of course – and the Republican dupes who want to boast about how they trimmed the “fat” off the pork laden bill are complicit in this ruse….the obvious crap is cut so the real money is left intact….
But 68% of the people who voted in the last election surveyed didn’t know who was in control of Congress for the past 2 years…you think they will have any clue about this spending bill? Not likely.
Sol Olinsky (Obamas dead socialist/communist mentor from the 30’s) got it right – Identify Your Enemy – Isolate Them – Destroy Them.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
So John – do you dispute the Forbes story and the impact it will/ it is having on everyone – taxpayers, cities, states and federal government? Do you still support your president enhancing unions as both he and our new congress has/ is planning to do? This has nothing to do with Bush or politics – we’re looking forward at what is best for the country NOW and how it will impact workers and the economy. If we look at what is happening NOW – the new leadership – the new direction we were promised is actually right out of FDR’s playbook? We have a right to express our concerns as citizens who have to pay for this, regardless of who is proposing it. As HR professionals we should be speaking out on the impacts of increased unionization at a time when many of the businesses we work for are suffering as are many take payers.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Well it was a political topic we were asked to comment on and as far as being one sided goes, all you hear on the far left controlled news media that no longer reports news objectively anymore is about praise and honor for some guy from Chicago who they claim is the “messiah”.
What nonsense….”bad things happen when good people do nothing”. So you can sit home and dummy up with the narcissists on MSNBC. Become a community organizer if you can’t take the heat in HR coming your way.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The article we were asked to comment on was regarding executive orders signed by President Obama. We had eight years to comment on articles written about Bush. Bush is no longer president, and we need to concentrate on the present which includes the direction our current president is turning us in. My company is a small one, but we are still effected by a union contract. Unions were great in the day that labor laws did not exist, but we now have labor laws in place, not only federal but state as well. Unions currently serve no purpose except to collect money and put that money into their pockets. Anyone that is on the side of giving unions more power, has a motive behind it, and I don’t believe it is concern for the people or the economy of America.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Jim says – “If we look at what is happening NOW – the new leadership – the new direction we were promised is actually right out of FDR’s playbook?”
Let’s see FDR took us out of something called the Depression and was instrumental in winning a war. Sounds like the EXACT opposite of Bush’s resume. Since you’re comparing Obama to FDR, I would say that as a first step to move as far away from Bush’s failed policies as possible would be excellent. What most of you are missing is that the costs are already incurred. Average people have been borrowing far more than they can ever repay. That’s capitalism run amuck. The only way that average people can have the “good life” is to run up credit cards and personal debt. And the economy has been feeding on that for decades. That’s great for business until it time to pay. It starts to look like a huge ponzi scheme. Well now its time to clean up the mess and its going to be costly and painful. But if we are going to survive as a great nation we have to pay the cost and share the pain. The hopelessly idiotic “trickle-down” policies of the past have been shamelessly ineffective.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
You ignored the question John.
And FDR didn’t take us out of the depression – the war did.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
There is no doubt that many of the big corporations and their senior management did some outrageous things, which hurt our economy. However, many of their employees were hurt just like the rest of us. For those of us who do not work for those companies, we have been painted with the same brush…therefore, the regulations which are aimed to curb the excesses of those corporations will also catch us in the crossfire. The sad part is no one is going to bail us out. It has been a very long time since we had any pure capitalism. What we had instead was monopoly, with those people in business making sure the cost of entry was too high for any competition. There is plenty of blame to go around between the executive, congressional, and even judicial branches of government. I did not vote for Mr. Obama, but I wish him the best because we all want things to get better.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Yes – Mark is VERY CORRECT!! AND — If anyone is not concerned that much of Obama’s financing came from unknown sources (middle east sources folks) and that coutnries all across the world were chanting his name (if we don’t really know who he is — how can people who don’t even speak our language know anything more about him to think he is worthy of adulation? Why do they even care who our preisdent is?) The leftist media is very responsible for misleading not only our country but it seems the world. They don’t publish facts, but rather propaganda. So here are some facts for those of you who think anything said contrary to the left is just bitterness (know it now as outrage for the lack of truth, fairness and unbias in our media):
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
> Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential
> election:
>
> * Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
> * Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
> * Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143
> million
> * Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2
> Republicans: 2.1
>
> Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican
> won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
> Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
> government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government
> welfare…
>
> Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency
> and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some
> forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the
> “governmental dependency” phase.
>
> If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
> invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA
> in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means,
> delete this message.
>
> If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how
> much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our
> freedom.
January 21, 2009
1. Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas , commenting only: “Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people.”
Eight years ago yesterday (January 20, 2001):
1. Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/ rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with
incoming President Bush’s inauguration ceremony.
Yesterday (January 20, 2009):
2. President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential
pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border
patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler. He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.
Eight years ago yesterday (January 20, 2001):
2. President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of
sentence on his final day in office. Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President’s half-brother.
Yesterday (January 20, 2009):
3. The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms
for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals,
DVD’s and CD’s, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for
the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.
Eight years ago Yesterday (January 20, 2001):
3. Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets
from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the
White House toilets, systematically remove the letter “W” from every
computer key-pad in the entire White House, and damage several
thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago (January 21, 2005):
“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in
unarmored Humvees” “Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times” “Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”
Headlines Today (January 21, 2009):
“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million”
“Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”
“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”
“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”
———-This is what a class act looks like.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Jim is absolutely correct. FDR policies prolonged the depression for an additional 7 years…..capitalism works folks…Socialism hasn’t.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
To John the Socialist: FDR didn’t stop the recession – WWII did. FDR’s programs actually prolonged it. Also, Bush didn’t do anything to the economy other than to pander to the democRATS w/ the education, medicare, and drug bills. Congress, namely Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who were supposed to be overseers to the banking and Fannie, Freddie deals, let that slide into the mortgage crisis which precipitated the situation we’re in now. Government deserves much of the burden for any economic problems we have currently, yet they won’t quit spending. And now Nobama’s non-stimulus plan is just going to take us further down the slippery slope to socialism, which John thinks is just peachy. Let’s all go to Keynesian theory and see how far we get. This country was founded and prospered for nearly 200 years on free enterprise capitalism, but now the liberal socialists are ruining the greatest capitalistic society in the history of the world.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Maybe this analogy will help ….
Ice Cream & The Election
From a teacher in the Nashville area: Who worries about “the cow” when
It is all about the “Ice Cream?
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade
this year. The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an
interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.
We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the
class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.
We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run
for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections.
Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage
because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia’s mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended
by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech
was concise.
She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.” She sat
down.
The class went wild. “Yes! Yes! We want ice cream.” She surely could say
more. She did not have to. A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn’t sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn’t know.
The class really didn’t care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten.
Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and fifty-two
percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.
The other forty-eight percent of us know we’re going to have to feed the cow
and clean up the mess.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
John, I disagree that it is time for costs and pain. I feel it is time for pain, but not cost. Both sides politically have made mistakes, but it is not ok to just give handouts all the time. Let capitalism fix itself. These bailouts will only continue to add to the new american way of “give-me, give-me, give-me” rather than the older american way of “work hard, become smarter, and our country will improve”. Our country as a whole as changed, and this new change is not the right way to go about it.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Agree Dozer – which was the purpose of posting the Forbes article at the top of this. We have 22 million public servants represented by unions that are leading to financial ruin of our cities, states and federal government. It is a disaster that will dwarf the current financial problems is unions and entitlements are not reined in. It is incomprehensible that our new president would even entertain the notion of strengthening unions given what the tax-payers are facing as a result of these organizations.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Funny! Whenever you can’t speak inteligently call names. It works in politics and it works on message boards. I said my peace.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
The problem is John, people are speaking to you intelligently – you are listening intelligently.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
The problem is John, people are speaking to you intelligently – you aren’t listening intelligently.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
John, you simply ran out of any facts which is easy to do when you don’t have many on your side to start with. Hopefully for you the school textbooks are all being rewritten to reflect your distorted historical perceptions and the next generation will be even less enlightened than what we are turning out now.
When you get into a gunfight, bring a gun next time – not a water pistol. I applaud you on your hanging in there for much longer than any of the liberals I have encountered who simply go mute and stare off into the ceiling because they can’t cite facts to back up their (hate Bush still) chants.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Jim you were half right the first time, but we’ll never agree on which half.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Let’s put it all into laymen’s terms for our voting public:
This is called Bar stool Economics: (Our tax system explained)
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The nineth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemd quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I am going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″.
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would be end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each would pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only save a dollar too! It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got!”
“That’s true!!,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. If fact, they might start drinking overseas.
Keep it up people — and we will end up like all the other socialist countries — belly up. And, keep in mind that Hilter started out as a community activist also. He also was a “great orator”. Then also remember that when the Roman empire fell the people who were the richest and most lauded were the politicians, actors and athletes. Not necessarily in that order.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Amen Laura….enough said.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Jim and Laura and Mark – Do you people even have jobs? Or do you hang around message boards all day looking for opportunities to espouse your half baked philosophies? Maybe the unions won’t have anything to do with you, and that’s why you are so anti-union? Any one with a computer can use Google to find “facts” and obnoxious stories to support their rants. It seems that whenever there is a contentious issue on this board, you three are all over it and filling it with miles long posts and calling out anyone that has an opposing view. For my part, I’ve been called much worse than socialist or liberal, but I’ve never been called anything as low as republican or conservative.
Enough said!
February 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
What is most scary is that half the people pay no taxes yet get to vote on how much to take from those who do pay the taxes. Not good – flat tax everyone.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Mark, I loved your story about the ice cream. That is so true!
February 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Interesting how you call the truth “obnoxious”… So you are saying that Forbes magazine got it all wrong? That the public records for municipal, state and federal workers are somehow in error and the writer is mistaken about the social disaster headed our way?
February 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
John — you are here also – do you have a job or are you waiting for Barako to pay your way as well? I don’t think enough said is your liberal idea of truth — as long as it supports mindless thinking and versus an intelligent viewpoint. The reason conservatives have money or have jobs is because they are CONSERVATIVE — get it???? Additonally, I have never been to this before today — so again, check your facts — I am not all over antying except truth and educating simple liberals as to the errors of non-thinking, not working and not making your own way in the world without needing bailed out or piggybacking on people to work and pay taxes and save rather than spend on things we cannot afford — rack up credit card debt and spend food stamp change on booze and cigarettes. can’t take the heat, John — move to Russia.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Too bad this had to turn into the parties disagreeing with each other. What happened to the initial discussion and why would you turn an informative and discussion site into a political blogging. Enough for me, I’m unsucscribing and advising others to do the same.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Businesses create jobs and profitable businesses create long-term, higher paying jobs.
Government creates taxes. It has no money of it’s own; it must use our money.
We get our money from high paying jobs provided by profitable businesses.
US economic policy should support business and lower corporate taxes.
It’s pretty simple math. The trillion dollars the government wants to spend has to come from somewhere. Government jobs cannot replace private-sector jobs because private-sector jobs fund government and the government can’t buy anything without the private sector funding. Why is something so simple so misunderstood??
February 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Seems there are a lot of people who would fail the basic economics class purported to be taught in high schools around this once-great nation.
Is it wrong to help a person in need? Only when they are unable to help themselves.
We have nurtured this entitlement theory too long.
In the movie “Cinderella Man”, the boxer resorts to “the dole” (welfare) only when his kids are taken from him – long after the electricity was cut.
Now for the good part. Once he is back on his feet, he PAYS BACK (did you hear that, he PAID BACK) all the money that he was given from the system. Now that is honorable.
Such was the exit of the Bush family. The grace of his exit, and the nobility of his actions may be forgotten by some, but I’ll bet the two children remember the gifts for a while.
Can we stop to celebrate true character and do what is right, and forget about WHO is right?
John, can you stop to realize that some people’s actions are to be applauded, even when you disagree with their opinion?
Good luck to President Obama – we should all stop to pray for him given the current situation of our nation (not just the $$ side).
February 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Imagine if all this were being conducted by the many organized anti-american minions (like MoveOn, DailyKos and Acorn) of the political powers that wanted to subvert the constitution and change our society at it’s very core – which is happening in front of your eyes.
If it was, then the dialogue here would be much more crass and devoid of intellectual stimulus (no pun) not to mention retaliatory as witnessed by the sponsors of “free” speech that rail against anyone (physically even) who dare disagree with their hypocritical ideas about freedom without responsibility. People will always disagree with one another Deb, it is how you disagree.
This forum allowed people to speak their minds and in quite frank terms….there was no foul language there was some disagreement, but the topic was one that begs such discourse….enjoy the opportunity while you still have it because once it is gone – it is not coming back!
Lajeli hits the nail on the head….
February 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Thanks Mark
Your thinking is right on about the policies and the right to discuss them.
As an HR professional, I feel responsible to protect the business that employs me (which in turn protects the jobs that business creates). I think it would do everyone some good to think about how much time they spend biting (as opposed to protecting) the hand that feeds them!
February 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
It’s funny how your perspective changes your idea of what’s an insult vs a compliment. See I’ve never been called anything as low as a liberal or democrat, thank goodness.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
It is true that we have allowed many to believe that 1st Amendment rights only apply if you are a liberal or are a part of mainstream media today. Our forefathers wrote that amendment because even they did not agree on everything – they knew it was important, if not valid, to view (and respect) other opinions and beliefs. The heart of this discussion is basic — it is not allowing government into every corner of our lives, businesses, philosophies and beliefs; not allowing the government to change the foundations that made this country free and great; and not allowing the minor few to do less, yell louder and get more than the masses who provide for the system to work as well as it has. Accountability is missing and too many are misled into believing things are going to get better because a politician used it during speaches. We need to wake up as a nation and see what is happening – it is not sour grapes– it is scary and snowballing.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Flat Tax? Jim, That is and always should be a ridiculous notion. The flat tax forces the poor to pay a higher portion of their income to taxes; this is why a graduated tax bracket is important and necessary. A flat tax would kill the middle class, the rich become richer and the poor poorer. I encourage you to do some studying on this topic.
John, I have tried to be discerning politically, and have chosen my candidates this way. There is never a perfect candidate, but a voter needs to pick the best one in their minds. I do not disagree with Obama because he liberal nor because he is democrat. I just plain feel that redistribution of wealth can be overdone, especially if it isn’t done carefully. This is where I feel the government continues to screw up, both Bush and Obama. No bailouts please. Let capitalism fix itself.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
If we all pay the same rate percentage of income, how would the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? I don’t understand. Can you explain please? i agree with you by the way that capitalism should fix itself. i think any redistribution of wealth is a bad idea
February 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. No longer would the tax code penalize success and discriminate against citizens on the basis of income.
The notion has been ridiculous only to those who benefit from the tax code – politicians, lawyers, and career government administrators. How do you conclude that a flat tax would kill the middle class? And how would the rich get richer under that scheme? What is a fair rate of tax on the “poor” and the “rich”?
Under a flat tax program, politicians would lose all ability to pick winners and losers, reward friends and punish enemies, and use the tax code to impose their values on the economy. Not only would this end a major source of political corruption, but it is also pro-growth since companies would no longer squander resources lobbying politicians or making foolish investments just to obtain favorable tax treatment.
As I stated earlier, this country is fast approaching the point where a minority of its citizens pay for the majority. That must be fixed or there will be another Tea Party. Or perhaps you’ll let me vote based on the number of dollars I “contribute” to the federal government each year?
Flat taxes have worked where tried – examples – Balkan countries and Russia. They have not had the impact you fear.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
E.G. Say I make $100/yr and you make $200. Taxes are 15% for me and 22% for you. That leaves me with $85 left for food($35), gas($20), and other expenses($10). That also leaves $156.00 left for similar disbursements. So, after taxes, I only have $20 left over, and you have $91 left over. So, the percentage of savings comparing me to you is as follows: 20% left for my disposable income vs. your 45% left-over disposable income. If we both paid 15%(flat tax), you would have even more disposable income! I hope this analogy helps.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Jim, have you seen Russia’s economy? It is ten times worse than ours right now, and our is like almost depression era bad. Please see my example above or take an accounting class to understand the importance of a graduated tax bracket.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Isn’t a flat tax where we all pay the same percentage? So if I earn $200 and you earn $100, we each pay 15% in taxes and keep 85% for ourselves. (You keep $85 and I keep $170). If taxes are for the purpose of sharing the expense of necessary government infrastucture (military, courts, roads, schools…etc) then wouldn’t the same percentage of taxes be more fair than some paying a higher percentage? Sorry but I am still lost on this one.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
It might be more fair to each pay 15%, but follow our current process in practicality once. I continue saving only $20 each year, so in 20 years I have $400. You also save for twenty years and now have $1,820.00. This is how the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. If we each paid 15% the gap between rich and poor would be even worse. This is why they began the Income Tax in the first place.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Thank you! I do understand it now. I don’t know if I agree with it though.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Yes Dozer – highly dependent on oil which is volatile. But it is better since they settled on a flat-tax. So are the Balkans (better than they were).
Your example assumes that people at different income levels consume at the same rate, which they do not. Spending patterns vary based on earnings. And you must use much higher amounts in your examples in order for the percentages and amounts saved to have meaning in ordinary life. Because I make more, does not entitle the government to more progressively. There is no gurantee of a certain level of disposal income for anyone that I am aware of…
February 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
It is more important in my mind that we understand the big picture, not necessarily agree with each other. Thanks for the good questions.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I don’t think taxes shuld be decided based on what is left after you pay them. Seems kind of backward to me. What about the idea of no income tax at all…only sales tax? What does everyone think of that?
February 9th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Jim, there are, however, basic necessities in life. Food, clothes, etc that would be the same at a most basic level. The more wealthy spend more because they intinsically have more disposable income. So they have afford more private schools, and higher education more easily. They can afford to have a bigger house with bigger utility bills. The list goes on. My example was to help all understand the basic concept of our current system and to answer the posed question. I can understand where someone who works hard and makes more money gets “punished” with higher taxes and that does stink.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I thought the comments were regarding the 3 Executive Orders signed by Obama???
February 9th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I believe that there is the same exact problem as a flat tax. If I buy bread with my smaller savings account, and you buy bread with your larger savings account, you still come out way ahead. Part of the idea behind this concept of income tax is to allow the poor to survive and improve their status. This way, the rich won’t have to eventually cover the masses; the masses can contribute something to their government. In today’s world, there is an issue of people taking advantage of the programs that help the poor. That is a sad reality. My friend is a Big Sister-mentor of a young child in a poor family. My friend asked her what she wants to be when she grows up. SHe replied that she wasn’t sure, but if she didn’t get a job, she would just get a first-of-the-month check. This is the type of culture we need to fix, not give more money to.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Great discussion — I have to, by nature, address John. We are in danger of many things right now — some are much more concerning but all are of concern. John, you must realize that by calling out some people for being on this discussion board and mocking the time they spend speaking their thoughts is dangeroulsy close to Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that conservative talk needs to be quashed. You have spent at least equal time here reading and writing, but that is different? How? Is is possibly because you feel only your viewpoints are valid? That, my friend, is unfair and undemocratic and you deserved the backlash given.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I see what you mean. I don’t want people to starve but it seems like setting up a safety net is what creates the mentality. What if I told my kids not to worry about school or getting a job because I would be more than happy to take care of them throughout their adult lives? When i could only provide so much and they wanted more than that, wouldn’t I have quite a problem on my hands? I think that under the current system, the rich are paying for a lot of programs that benefit people who will not help themselves. If there was no such thing as welfare or food stamps, would the girl’s answer have been different? Wouldn’t it have to have been different. If there were no such thing as a first of the month check, the girl would only have a choice of jobs and not the choice whether or not to work at all. I hate to sound harsh or cold but I keep thinking about the people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. I think that many of them stayed and trusted that help would come. If they hadn’t expected help, would things have been different? What is possible when failure is no longer an option? Is it right for the government to promise so many things to so many people at the expense of so many others? At some point, the scales will tip and the promises will exceed the funds. Will we have a nation-wide post Katrina disaster on our hands at that point? Can’t the help be given without the government doing it?
So many questions…Sorry for the rant, I got carried away and started thinking out loud
February 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
We’ve drifted some but good conversation. I would remind all that this country did just fine without income tax and social security tax for much of its history. Eight states still function fine without income taxes and they are not in Washington with the hands out. Income taxes were necessary for social engineering – not a prime directive of the Constitution. We could do fine without them again.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Government manipulation of political transaction costs contributed significantly to the institutional changes and subsequent ideological transformation supporting income tax withholding. Though in 1943 the withholding mechanism was sold politically as a benefit to taxpayers, government officeholders even then widely regarded it as a means of extracting greater tax revenue. Senators and representatives spoke candidly in congressional hearings (U.S. Senate Hearings 1943: 43) of the revenues that needed “to be fried out of the taxpayers.” Charlotte Twight
I would contend that if taxpayers had to sit down and pay their tax bill once a year on April 15, there would be instant tax-payer revolt and swift change. “Frying” tax-payers every pay day enables the politician to take your money and spend it foolishly.
And back to the topic at hand, unions allow union organizers to “fry” their members regularly for “dues” to conduct political lobbying and payoffs. Why our president would continue to enable them and give them more power is beyond me.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I agree this site has become a place for political discussion – more right-leaning than left-leaning, I notice. A few thoughts: re FDR, at least he did something. Hoover did not believe in government intervention and did nothing I know of. Without that government intervention in the form of work programs, how high would unemployment have gone beyond the 30% or so we had then? People were on the street selling apples and lining up at soup kitchens daily. At least with a government job, since not much else was available, a person could feed his family with dignity.On the other hand, some of the formerly wealthy who had made a killing in the stock market and lost it all, couldn’t face life with no money and no certainty and unfortunately took their own lives. We need to keep in mind that it’s not a choice between all government or no government – we need a balance. There are some things the private sector will not do because it is profit-driven. For example, health insurance for those who cannot work, i.e, the mentally ill, isn’t handled by private for-profit insurance companies. As for the constant refrain of the “mainstream liberal media” – I watched the candidates interviewed and found each treated with dignity and respect, and asked the same questions. Also, a writer (not sure if this site) said he’d seen an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging, but that Obama only had some posters torn down. Not the whole story – there was an effigy of him, too, with a knife in his neck and, at a Palin rally, some who shouted out racial epithets at the camera crew covering the rally. That may not have shown up in the conservative media, I don’t know. As for unions,I have heard so many times about our labor laws and seen the complacency that assumes we could never lose them. But, I’ve also heard the horror stories of times when those employee benefits were not available. I personally remember when you did not get maternity leave, or even get to keep your job, when you had a baby. You returned to work and began again, seniority-wise, at the beginning. New administrations can undo orders passed by prior administrations and with the “right” mix in Congress, we might not be able to take the labor laws for granted. We won’t agree with everything the president does – not sure how employers can let employees know the benefits are as good as the union is indicating they will provide, with the new restrictions mentioned – but we are all Americans first, I hope, so let’s give the president a chance.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Judy go back to sleep will you please or go to myspace or something.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Wow!
Maybe we should all run for public office. At least we (at least most of us) have worked before.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Jim,
Your comments are so divisive. Public and private sector employees are workers and I would guess that the great majority are Americans. As I read your response, it sounds like you’re angry with the compensation structure that is in place for public sector employees. What about the fact that most CEOs of privately held companies earn 500 times more than the direct labor and administrative employees? As I look at the stock market, the banking industry, the insurance industry and others, I think all could learn a thing or two from the public institutions on how to better manage.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Yes and now to make sure the distribution of all those government funds fits the whims and desires of our soon to be president for life, it was revealed that the Census Bureau will now become an arm of the executive branch of government. How absolutely convenient for him.
Control the information source and have the Acorn folks run the census process as well as they corrupted the election process – and with $4Billion in new money it won’t be hard. So, cities with political leanings toward the president will receive more federal money because their districts will have so many more people (overnight).
Obama said redistribution of wealth and he meant it folks.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Every single dollar of the stimulus plan will have to come from somewhere. The government will hae to tax for that money or print more (which is inflationary). Every dollar they say they are putting “into the economy” will have to come from the economy in the first place. They aren’t creating anything; they are just moving it around. The real solution is to support people who actually generate wealth–people who create something that can be traded in the global marketplace. When the government taxes the people and businesses, it raises the cost of goods sold which makes it harder for us to compete in the global marketplace. This is what screwed up the dollar and had such an effect on oil prices (since oil is traded in USD).
It’s not about helping the poor, it’s about improving the economic system in the US by supporting the business that create ‘good’ jobs (not low-paying or temporary jobs like the stimulus package would give us) so more people will have good jobs so there will be less people in the “poor” category. The stimulus package makes no sense at all. We need to reduce the number of people considered “poor” not creating a system that will enable greater numbers of people to be in poverty for longer periods of time without any chance to get out.
Anyone who says there is only one solution and we must act immediately is usually lying or selling something suspicious or both!
February 10th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Sorry Bruce – in a time when the average private sector worker is worried about their job and taxes that will surely rise to pay for a “stimulus”, on the horizon is even a larger problem created by the unions representing local, state and federal workers. The cost will dwarf the “stimulus” package being debated now and you and I will pay for it. There can be no reason for a public worker earning more than a equivalent private sector worker, there can be no reason for them to have guaranteed for life pensions and benefits when those paying for it do not. To further empower unions as this president has done (and more is to come) flies in the face of all tax-payers, regardless of party. You should be appalled. You have cities going bankrupt, selling off park land, etc… just to pay exorbitant wages and benefits to workers who have an unemployment rate far below that of the private sector. Exactly how is the information presented in the Forbes article good for any American? You succumb to the news media that plays to a relative few people but ignores 22 million people being over-paid and over-benefited relative to the average private sector tax-payer. But you won’t see mainstream media asking the governors or the president what they will do about it.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:14 am
So, scholars answer this…..when was the last time a poor person created a job for anyone?
Anyone telling you to rush to action for anything (like buying great stock) is in my opinion and experience hiding something or profoundly lying – or both. Even the President cannot (and did not) tell us where the money is going and to what end. How absolutely absurd is this people – wake up…..
In this case “wait and see” is not a good option because it will be too late to reconcile once put in play. Pelosi and Reed are banking (literally) on the stupidity and complacency of the public.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Poor people seem to create a lot of government jobs if you ask me. Those are tax-payer funded jobs by the way which take from the economy and could cause a reduction in the number of private sector jobs.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’m not sure why John has tolerated the abuse given to him by the “intellingent” folks who are responding to this argument. It amazes me the minute someone tries to do something for “the people” they are considered to be socialist and anti-American and are going to bring the country down. The little tricks you republicans play are incredible; you spend all your time berating, in a political fashion, the current president and when someone happens to use an example of what the last president did to the country you start talking about this being a forum to discuss the article and not politics.
You cannot avoid talking about the past president if you are going to discuss the article rationally and the state of the economy at this point. You can argue about FDR and what he did to the economy or didn’t do and that it was the war or his policies athat brought us out of the depression, the fact is he was president at the time; and we can definitely say he did not cause the depression.
We know that we had a budget surplus when Bush was given the office of president by the Supreme Court; we also know that we are deeply in debt at the end of his two terms. We have record unemployment in many areas of the country; record foreclosures all over the country; businesses that have been in existence (large and small) for generations going out of business; yet the big oil companies are making record profits (most of their workers make more money than you can count and I’m not talking about the heads of these companies, what they make is incomprehensible); you have monopolies running the media (which limits real discussions of what is happening); you had a vice president making plans about the energy of this country and does it in private and never indicates who participated in the conversations, but based on who received the profits it is quite obvious; you have those persons working as CEOs of the big corporations making more money than anyone can count, then coming to the federal gov’t asking for a bailout or their company is going to go under and you folks are complaining about police officers and public servants making too much money. Why don’t you look at the real problems, the people who are really causing the pain, i.e., those folks who are milking the country out of billions of dollars and living lifestyles that are beyond the average persons comprehension. If the billions that have been wasted on no-bid contracts in Iraq and around the world, given to cronies of the past administration, had been made available for the good of the “country” and not a few good ol’ boys, we would not have this discussion.
And what those in power of the financial institutions have done to this country, all in the name of greed, warrants at a minimum stoning but their greed will buy them freedom and another two or three castles and who knows what else.
The amount of money you are talking about that will be given to the common everyday man, versus what these leaders of industry have squandered for their own pleasures is a flick on the head of a pen.
You guys need to start dealing with reality and stop thinking about yourselves and how you can get more and give more to the master so that you can grow up to be like the masters–selfish and greedy.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:23 am
“Poor” people create jobs all the time, or at least try to. Look at http://www.cusackmusic.com for an example, or http://www.dykhuisfarms.com for another example. These people are called entrepreneurs. In the first example, he now has 8 employees full-time and 3 part-time after 8 years in business. The second example started as a small individual farm, but now has 130 employees! Some “poor” people work hard, and after years and years it sometimes pays off into helping others have employment and aids communities. This is where the government is missing the boat. We need to find and support people and businesses that are trying to make a difference in the world.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Here is how Obama’s campaign described the ’stimulus’ spending which you can see is way, way less money than we are talking about now:
http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
In case anyone has the time (and the patience) to read the entire stimulus package,you can find it here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1:
February 10th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Because Melvin, the people that are “milking” the tax-payer are the local state and federal unions and their workers. Sorry, but if you add up the liability, as Forbes has done, it is staggering compared to any CEOs pay or any stimulus bill now contemplated. And you will pay for it. At least the CEOs pay comes from a company’s profits, not the tax-payers wallet. If this article doesn’t appal you then perhaps you are on the public payroll? I’m neither repub or dem – I’m American first.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Melvin wrote:
“The amount of money you are talking about that will be given to the common everyday man, versus what these leaders of industry have squandered for their own pleasures is a flick on the head of a pen.”
I consider myself a common, everyday man (but female of course) and I am not interested in receiving anything I didn’t earn myself. I want the opppotunity, not the handout (please and thank you).
As for “squandering”, I think that could also mean “putting back into the economy by purchasing goods and services”.
I am more afraid of the master who can control me because I have nothing he hasn’t given me than I am afraid of the master who earned more than I did and might charge me unfairly for something I can choose not to buy.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Excellent point dozer!! If I had been less cranky I might have thought of something positive but I let my focus remain narrow until I read your response. Thank you for helping me get back some perspective
February 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Melvin — while Bush may have inherited a surplus it was a boulder on the edge of a cliff. Whom do you think created the mess with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Well — it was Clinton — and that was the snow ball that kept on going. Bush warned Congress that this was a problem in his first year – year 1/2 of presidency. congress did not take heed — here we are. Quit – quit — quit blaming Bush for the problems of 8 years of idiocy of Slick Willy. You leftists think that by talking fast and in circles you can confuse more people into believing you know what you are talking about. Check the facts that the media has misrepresented — then make an informed opinion.
We are headed in a direction that this country was not meant to go. That direction is SOCIALISM. It is apparent. Workers who earn their money by first either educating themselves or working into a skill set that is valuable to our society/marketplace should be able to keep thier earnings and do with them as they choose. Those who do not have the gumption to work or get educated sit on their hinds watching idiots on TV have the right to our hard earned dollars. WHY??? The unions have paid employees too much for unskilled jobs, causing a rise in the cost of products that have now gone overseas. The bailout is not going to work — it is spending foolishly to promote an agenda that is politically charged by the current administration.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Laura,
You are absolutely right. Clinton and the democrats thought everyone should be equal, in that we should all be able to be homeowners. They encouraged these stupid loans to people who shouldn’t have loans and now everyone is surprised that they walked away instead of paying these stupid mortgages. When I bought my house I had to have a good credit rating (proof that I paid my bills) stay within a price my income warranted, have a down payment, and prove I have a certain amount in savings. During the Clinton administration those lending guidlines relaxed to the point that you didn’t have to have at least a 700 credit score, no down payment was required, no proof of income was required, no savings account in case you lost your job or the furnace went out. They even started giving mortgages to people who didn’t have a social security number. Even before the Bush administration they were warned that when the house of cards they were building came tumbling down the consequences would be very severe.
Well, it tumbled and it is severe. If we don’t using some common sense soon it will be too late and the stimulus package as it stands right now will just accelerate the problem.
Do we really want to get to the point where a Socialist government tells us what house we can buy based on the number of children we have? After all, isn’t it”fair and equal” for a bigger family to have the bigger house? Just how far are we going to let the government go in running things for us?
February 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Abraham Lincoln believed he had a responsibility as president to model his policies and actions after those of the founding fathers. I have noticed that Obama has taken the oppotunity to give us the impression that he admires Lincoln but seems to have missed some important principles that Lincoln held dear. The following statement attributed to Abraham Lincoln proves this misalighment:
“Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
February 10th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I am glad that some people “get it” and Lajeli gets the price for all of his/her comments.
Jump starting the economy is a concept that was flawed in the begining, was flawed in the
past, is flawed in the present, and will be flawed forever.
Every time there is a crisis the polititians say “It never happened before like this, we are in a new
paradigm, we can fix it this time.”
And they increase the power and influence of goverment, leaving us ever the poorer.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I am glad that some people “get it” and Lajeli gets the prize for all of his/her comments.
Jump starting the economy is a concept that was flawed in the begining, was flawed in the
past, is flawed in the present, and will be flawed forever.
Every time there is a crisis the polititians say “It never happened before like this, we are in a new
paradigm, we can fix it this time.”
And they increase the power and influence of goverment, leaving us ever the poorer.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
While I agree with some of what Jim is saying, I am married to a policeman, and have to say that he doesn’t tell the whole side of the story. While he does participate in PERA, he also does not pay into Social Security. If they can pay into PERA and have enough to retire on without draining the already poverty-stricken Social Security fund, more power to them! If all the rest of us could do that, we wouldn’t have to worry about all of the people who will only have Social Security and therefore collect welfare/food stamp type benefits as they won’t be able to make it financially. If his pension didn’t pay him for the rest of his life, what would he live on?
He does not make a great salary – in fact the pay equity study our city did showed him as an equivalent in responsibility to that of a zamboni driver for our ice rink. In my mind, carrying a gun and being responsible for people’s safety and lives carries a little more responsibility than a bad day on the ice rink. Their decisions (that need to be made in a split second) can change or end people’s lives. He makes little more than a beginning teacher salary in our school district – for part-time hours for 9 months of the year.
As far as trying to make more money the last couple years before retirement, anyone could do the same with Social Security as that is also paid on your highest earning years. The truth is that the new millenium generation doesn’t want the overtime. They don’t need to be inconvenienced to come in on their day off or in the middle of the night because someone is sick or on vacation. Our department calls through the list once, but then has to order someone in if no one volunteers. Ten years ago my husband would almost never get ordered in. Now it is much more frequent.
As far as early retirement, no matter the cause of death, it is my understanding that statistics show that policemen die on average many years earlier than other people in different professions. That is not to discount other professions or the stress that goes along with them, but again – this does not put any stress on the Social Security system.
Mayor Bloomberg says “We have far less to spend on core services, such as public safety, education, parks and senior centers.” Tell me what business doesn’t have less to spend on their regular expenses these days?
Certainly some of his examples are extravagent, but they are not necessarily typical.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:20 am
http://www.Fairtax.org for all of those interested in aplan which will get this country back on track. The politicians don’t like it because it takes power from them. But if you read up on it – you’ll see it is the best solution to our woes.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Nice site Larry….makes you wonder if we will ever have a chance at a fair tax in our lifetime with so much debt our government just incurred…..$7 Trillion? Is implosion far off…..
March 16th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I forgot? Who was the president for the past 8 years and who controlled BOTH houses for 6 of those years? Mr Bush and firends could have changed ANY laws Clinton put into place along with ALL the changes Mr Frank put out for easy loans.
Please please please share the responsibility with both corrupt parties.
If only it was so black and white. It is so easy to blame others.
And I asssume sarah Palins plan would have worked much much better
PLEASE
March 17th, 2009 at 8:10 am
C’mon folks see the forest through the trees….this nonsense we see every day is all smokescreen to distract your attention – it is working obviously because the bigger agenda is being carved out right under our noses – next month the G-20 meets to develop a new reserve currency – it currently is the dollar – when that happens your money will be virtually worthless. You bitch about the AIG bonuses – which replaced their high salaries – which are under contract. What – are we supposed to not honor contracts anymore…..then what?
By the way the CEO of AIG is a DEMOCRAT – has been for at least 3 years – Elliot Spitzer made sure the guy who built the business for 40 years (A Republican) was cast off the board because of accusations – and absolutely NOTHING came of those accusations – except Spitzer turned out to be a massive hypocrite and resigned in scandal. In fact most of the fat cats who run these investment firms are democrats folks…not republicans….surprise! So Obama complains but does nothing to stop the money grab….of course not!
Barney Frank……geez, talk about a skeevey character with no morals….anyone sticking up for that liar is simply a fool…”too many regulations, not enough regulations” which one is it Barney?
Franklin Raines is up on 177 charges of FRAUD after Clinton told him to sell loans to anyone….and he did. Clinton also signed the repeal of Glass-Steigle in 1999 unleashing rules in place on bad loans since 1933…..so for you ranting about Bush and Clinton….get over it because you can’t do a damn thing about it….FOCUS people…..on what is going on right in front of you…right now.
Now Obama wants to step in and void any contract HE doesn’t think appropriate? Think of the consequences in that.
Bush/Clinton – these are lightweight players compared to what Obama has in store….his financial genius (Geitner) that he claimed had to be appointed immediately to get a plan on track (but can’t figure out how to pay his own taxes) can’t find anyone to work in his team – why is that? Because there is NO PLAN….or worse….the “plan” is too radically socialist and no patriot is stepping up to take part…..
How about Obama giving his teacher union paybacks to the Detroit schools where only 38% of the kids graduate….only 5% attempt college…..to the tune of $534Million…..paybackk – how sweet….in 5 years the graduation rate rate will be 25%. The school district has over $50Million in money unaccounted for, fired 3 Superintendants in a row….and these giveaways will continue across the board – no controls asked – until there is no money left and we will be forced to adopt the European Socialist Model, the global financial symbol (mark of the beast maybe?) from the G-20 and the ultimate – global rule…..gee, wonder who is in line for that honor?
Keep sitting on your hands folks piss and moan about the distractions while you very freedoms evaporate in front of you. At least the folks in Cincinnati have done something…..