C4L message On Wisconsin

[wstrucke]

I realize I'm not the traditional RP supporter. I agree with a lot of what he says, about spending, policing the world, following the Constitution, etc... Not everything, but a lot of it. Besides that, he's honest and I believe he truly means what he says and doesn't have an ulterior agenda.

I believed that the Campaign for Liberty was founded to continue what he started in 2008 and to bring values, transparency, and truth back to the federal (and all levels of) government. Yesterday, however, John Tate, the president of the C4L sent an e-mail about the public employees unions and the issues in Wisconsin, which I feel are a departure from the purpose of C4L. Is this just me? Is it just that I'm in the middle somewhere between the big R and D?

It seems like everyone is polarized right now over the public employees bargaining. It seems like state leaders are using this issue to divide and conquer the middle class, pitting public workers against private. Public workers don't make a lot of money doing the same work as private employees. The trade off is better, or at least fixed, benefits.

Maybe someone can explain this better to me, but is this really that much money compared to what else is going on? How is this any different from congress arguing in public about whether or not to provide NASA with another $100 million when in the back room they are sending hundreds of billions to private industry and foreign, sovereign nations?

tl;dr: isn't this just a distraction by those in power to maintain their power? Is C4L falling for it?

[gls]

No, the issue is not just a distraction. There is a LOT of money at stake, money that the states - which are required to balance their budgets - don't have. For the good of everyone public unions need to be drastically reformed or eliminated. Tough times are the reality of the private sector and government workers can't continue to be immune to them.

[specsaregood]

Public workers don't make a lot of money doing the same work as private employees. The trade off is better, or at least fixed, benefits.


Uhm, I think you might need to recheck your numbers.

[wstrucke]

Uhm, I think you might need to recheck your numbers.

Do you have any actual data to support this? My wife and I both work in the public sector and compensation is paltry, but I'll give you that it could just be my personal experience. Obviously we know a large number of people in the same position.

Now, I see government contract positions with private companies making two to three times more money to do similar work so I can definitely see *that* as an area we could cut back, but teachers?

Edit: I've seen figures in the newspaper quoting local salaries for teachers, and IMO often the numbers are skewed when they include administrators who are often way overpaid and/or in positions that are completely unnecessary.

[Thomas]

I don't think I like C4L backing one side or the other on this matter...

[silverhandorder]

Well Wisconsin teacher compensation counting benefits is 106k. That is a lot for a teacher.

[ctiger2]

Well Wisconsin teacher compensation counting benefits is 106k. That is a lot for a teacher.

Does that take into account they don't work 3mo out of the year too? Could be even higher than that...

[wstrucke]

that was my point. i would also like to add that I'm not against changing my current opinion on the matter, but all I have heared people saying is "public employees make too much money" or "public employee benefits are bankrupting states", which are essentially the same phrases being used in the media and by politicians without any actual data. If someone would be kind enough to take a minute or two to summarize why this is a good idea, I'd be happy to consider it and then pass it on.

But honestly, if public employee salaries (which benefits are part of) are bankrupting the states, does that not mean that the states can't afford to run all of the programs they have? Isn't that the whole point of RP & C4L? It seems like we're barking up the wrong tree.

[wstrucke]

Well Wisconsin teacher compensation counting benefits is 106k. That is a lot for a teacher.

Is that number the average or the maximum? Teachers I know start in the 30s full time (not including benefits), maybe 40s depending if they are in higher cost areas of the US. That's not a high number for a college degree, and in many places they are required to obtain a master's degree.

Does that number include the salaries of administrators, because that often skews the results a significant percentage.

[Thomas]

I don't really understand the issues well at hand here, but personally I think the only problems I have is the amount they are getting paid, the methods the unions use to achieve their goals (violence), and the government forcing public employees to join a union. What exactly is Walker trying to do?

[specsaregood]

//

[silverhandorder]

Yes it is the point of RP's platform. But more importantly when compared with private sector counterparts they get compensated much more. Go through the existing threads here they are chock full of comparisons and links.

The idea is that in order to get union support politicians promise them high pay outs in benefits and in their pensions so they do not have to pay up front.

The issue is muddied because the republicans are not being completely honest. Another reason for trying to eliminate such benefits is because unions give exclusively to democrats and with unions crippled money wise would mean democrats lose a lot of fund raising.

[Chieppa1]

Teachers make too much in liberal states. Period. And, they don't create a profit. So getting automatic raises is insane. Like some of this protesters.

I was watching FOX yesterday for like 30 seconds. They showed a scene from outside my state capital (NJ) of a punk union kid pointing at some old guy in a cowboy hate screaming "I pay for the fuckin hat." Then, a middle-aged black man put his arm around the old guy to support him.

Got the picture? Ok. How the hell is the public sector worker paying for an old man's cowboy hat? What world do these people live in? Is math really that hard?

[Chieppa1]

This is a state-by-state issue. Media and Washington want to make it national. Its state by state. I'm sure the teachers of North Dakota aren't sucking the life out of the state as they are in New Jersey.

[wstrucke]

You made the claim, not me. The average federal-level worker makes about double the private sector (including benefits) but why in the hell shouldn't benefits be included?

Well, I would have to agree with you that federal workers are over paid, but this entire "crisis" is about state employed workers not federal. Benefits should be included, I was trying to ask if they are or are not included in the presented figures, since that is relevant to the discussion.



You sure they are including administrators? And are they not public employees? The average salary for a teacher in my state is 58k (not including administrators) and they get a HUGE benefit package AND automatic 4% pay increase yearly.

Administrators are included about half the time in my experience, but notably it doesn't always say so. Yes, obviously school administrators are public employees, but they are unnecessary positions. Governor Kasich in Ohio ran on the platform that he was going to fix spending in particular by addressing this issue, at least that is what was quoted in the newspaper, but instead he's attacking teachers. As an example, there are county superintendents in Ohio who make 6 figures, when schools are managed at the municipal level and the state level, so you can have a bunch of vice-principals, principals, superintendent at the local level, more administrators at the county, then the state level. Ohio has 88 counties. That is potentially an enormous waste of funds.

You mentioned 58k is the average for teachers -- I realize this is a matter of opinion, but for a class of people with bachelors and/or master's degrees, that doesn't seem low to you? If you get the same education in engineering or the sciences, you will start at least 30% higher than that and end up easily double that figure, no?

[wstrucke]

This is a state-by-state issue. Media and Washington want to make it national. Its state by state. I'm sure the teachers of North Dakota aren't sucking the life out of the state as they are in New Jersey.

I definitely agree with this -- this is also something RP pushes, in that many things belong at the state level, right? So my original question -- why on earth is C4L pushing this?

[specsaregood]

//

[speciallyblend]

I don't think I like C4L backing one side or the other on this matter...

I tend to agree!

[speciallyblend]

wstrucke i hear ya. I 100% trust Ron Paul ,though i have disagreements in some areas! as i say sometimes, me joining the gop was a miracle and i try to remind the gop establishment? do not f with miracles:)

[NewName]

Charles Hugh Smith has some posts analyzing stuff like this on his blog, there are a lot that he's written over the last few years. He's seen this issue coming for a long time. And now it's here. We would probably be wise to take a look at his analysis of other things as well.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=pensions+site%3Aoftwominds.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[hazek]

tl;dr: isn't this just a distraction by those in power to maintain their power? Is C4L falling for it?

It's not a distraction as long as the right cause of this problem is identified. If for instance the blame is put on public workers then it is a distraction. If instead the blame is put on governments spending too much and being too big and using a crooked Federal Server System to inflate the money so they can even spend more then it's not a distraction.

So remember, the problems are very real. It depends on what the public is capable of identifying as the cause that matters!

[Beanie_N]

It's not the union members themselves that are to blame; it's that government has become to bloated and we need to cut wherever we can. I mean, why should C4L not side with Walker in trying to put put public workers on the same playing field as private workers? Millions of private workers have lost jobs and took pay cuts; public workers shouldn't be exempt from sharing in the pain. And collective bargaining gives government employees way too much unchecked power over taxpayers.

Read this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/27/public_unions__the_socialist_utopia_109046.html