Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Public Unions have no one to blame but themselves

Maryland's pro-regressive Democrat governor O'Malley is now asking Maryland fat 'crats to contriibute to their own pensions and health insurance and they are protesting him tonight

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Julie Dinkins-Borkowski <julie@bor--.com> wrote:

 

Public unions have no one but themselves to blame for believing government promises

Posted: 10 Mar 2011 03:39 PM PST

 

Shikha Dalmia points out that the REAL lesson to take away from Wisconsin is that every American – even the public sector worker – should be wary of becoming dependent on government promises:

There is an abiding delusion that frustrates efforts to limit the size and scope of government: The government, unlike the private sector, shields people from economic risk. Government jobs are regarded as safer and government bonds securer. But the battle that public unions are fighting in Wisconsin shows that the government can no more offer guarantees in life than the tooth fairy. On the contrary, it shows that a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you've got.

The fundamental reason why ObamaCare passed and Social Security privatization stalled is the fear that individuals need government programs to protect them from the cruel vagaries of the market. Market critics played up these fears in the wake of the financial meltdown. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd blamed "extreme capitalism and unrestrained greed for perverting the global financial system" and called on governments to take aggressive steps to protect victims facing job losses and melting retirement accounts.

But Wisconsin demonstrates that people who put their economic fate in the government's hands don't get safety; they get screwed. They simply trade the cruel vagaries of the market for the cruel vagaries of politics whose risks they have even less control over. Why? Because the government does not play by the same rules that apply to mere mortals in the private sector.

Wisconsin is just the first act in an unfolding tragedy in which states and municipalities across the country have promised $3.5 trillion—about a quarter of the national GDP—in pensions that they don't have the funds for. Unfunded health retirement costs are even greater. But how did we get to this point?

The reason, explained Orin Kramer, the chairman of the New Jersey Investment Council, in The New York Times, is that the government can use accounting methods and make assumptions about investment returns that private companies are simply not permitted. This diminishes its reserve requirements, freeing it to make lavish promises now and postpone the budgetary consequences into the future. Public unions go along with this subterfuge—something that private unions wouldn't do—because they count on the government's taxation powers to keep refilling the trough.

But the problem is that the government eventually either runs out of other people's money or it becomes politically untenable to keep raiding their pockets or both. And, at that point, the massive powers it had deployed against taxpayers get redirected towards thwarting those with claims against the government.

This is what is happening in Wisconsin right now. For years, its public unions have been living large. But now, facing a two-year $3.6 billion shortfall, Governor Scott Walker is asking the legislature to effectively rewrite the union contract, imposing compensation cuts on public employees—while paring back their collective bargaining rights. All of this might be totally justified and necessary. Still, it testifies to the awesome power of the state government to impose its will, regardless of any standing arrangement.

Competition and the rule of law check individual greed in the market. These mechanisms are not perfect, but at least they exist. Government, on the other hand, is an unregulated monopoly that sets its own rules and enforces them as and when it sees fit. Wisconsin's public unions can hardly complain if it changes the rules mid-game. After all, they are the ones who decided to play with it in the first place.

Read more at Reason.com

 

 

Peacefully yours,

PJ

 

 

 

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

• New Members 1

Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.