In our discussions today a caller stated that government should be cut in half so my question was "what would you cut?". Things got a little vague after that but later on in the day this individual turned up at the studio.
He explained that he follows the federal government, not necessarily local government but he said as far as he is concerned government employees have too many opportunities for a good retirement. He feels PERS should be eliminated because government employees are already able to contribute to tax -advantaged retirements to which the general public do not have access. I wasn't aware of it. he gave me an education and said that I'm turning into a bleeding heart when I talk about how important government jobs are to our local economy. He says dump those jobs and somehow private sector jobs will appear out of thin air.
Seriously, I understand the principal behind his thinking and there is room for it in a healthy economy that puts government back where it belongs and encourages private sector development and the jobs that would entail regardless of where the private sector ends up taking those jobs. China and Russia are suffering too. The private sector is about finding ways to control the means of production and the market price point by using cheap labor in countries where they have few concerns about the environment, or making pretty planning choices.
Am I making my point? This isn't simple stuff. It's a matter of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of our system. It's a matter of either accepting our boom and crash economy for the train wreak that it is and look for the alternative or just sticking to what we have and accepting that we will continue to allow profit
to drive us to balloons and government to continue to suck the life out of us while paying lip service to the principal of sensible regulation.
So back to the questions: What would you cut? How would you cut? Even if true efficiencies exist are we designed and equipped to recognize and take advantage of them? What fundamental changes need to take place to stabilize our economy long term? Is it desirable to do so or is it right and proper for our economy to be ruled by chaos (think about that one before answering too quickly)
More questions.
ReplyDeleteCan we make effective change in government at all as long as we continue the acute polarization between the mainstream political parties in America?
When is it time to set aside political differences in party leadersship and focus on a multi-lateral effort to address the problems facing all of us?
Is there a place in this nation today for Labor Unions in Public Sector Jobs?
Just a few minor questions but, if we are not prepared to wrestle with these and find resoltuion, can we really solve any of the others?
Your program yesterdqy made a fool out of one individual caught with his pants down on the issue and will do the same to others but, we damned well do have a crisis in this nation and it has to be addressed by all of us to solve it without interset to individual agendas.
Another question and you proved it out on yesterday's show...So, yes, there are many things we likely should change and as well, do away with but, as it was with Ross Perot and most recently, The Tea Party, where are the solutions to effectively and immediately implement those changes short of acute anarchy and complete shut-down of all government to do so and to whose advantage?
ReplyDeletePatrick, though many times we don't seem to see eye to eye, this time your comments are thoughtful and I must agree with you on some of these issues.
ReplyDeleteIt is time we try to set aside some of the extreme politics and work on the issues that effect us. As far as public unions, I think everyone can see that they carry an enormous amount of clout, and unlike a private union dealing with a business that may go bankrupt if pushed too hard, public unions do not have that worry, for the states and Federal Governments can't go bankrupt and will simply tax us for more money. Public Unions were not authorized in Oregon until I believe the early 70's, and then Kulongouski had a hand in it to change the law back then. Are public unions necessary like private unions, no I do not believe so. Right now there is very little balance in our state government between management and the work force, and there needs to be.
But the question is what can we do now?
For one thing, stop the bleeding. Change the contract for all new hires, and change the law that allows people to retire at a young age and then double dip. I believe it was back in 1999 that the Oregon Legislation changed the retirement clause, from saying tht you could retire after 65 (?) years to saying that you could retire after you turned 65 or had 30 years of service. This needs to be changed back right away.
Another thing is to look at where we were in 2007 and simply take our number of state emplyees back to then. We've add (I believe) about 2,500 jobs since then, all in the middle of a depression. This would not cause of Government shut down, just trim it back.
The third thing to look at is what do we actually need? While we have a 3.5 billion dollar shortfall, this is only if we are to keep what current services we have now. We will actually have as much or more money this budget cycle, but to keep up the current services it will take more money that it did this last budget. The legislators are currently looking at outcome based budget, in other words, making sure a certain outcome is happening for the money instead of just throwing more money every cycle (you would have thought they would already be doing this). This alone may save us a billion or two.
I could go on, but as I said first off, we must stop the bleeding.
Have a Merry Christmas all and a Happy New Year