Here comes another "stimulus"...this time for public employees..

IMO public employees are going to be the BIGGEST stranglehold on getting budgets under control especially that so many of them are unionized now. Look at the public teacher fiasco in NJ. These people are driving states into big black holes budget wise, and often times they are paid 2-3X as much as the private sector. Just the average Fed gov wage is almost TWICE that of the private sector.

Also to these loons debt reduction = higher taxes. That is the way this goes. Massive public spending with massive taxes on the private sector. They will never fire people, lay off unnecessary workers, reduce wages, etc. The public sector grows, spending grows, and the answer is always higher taxes.

Also public spending has never in history proven to improve the private sector because that money comes out the private sector one way or another to begin with. If its debt spending (like it is now) that is money that has to be repaid, and that will come out of the private sector in the future at some point thus reducing future growth. By the time Obama is done he is going to leave us with a 10-15 TRILLION dollar egg to pay back, and we still are going to be in a shitty economy with much higher future responsibilities to pay for in Federal spending.

The ONLY way to fix all this is:

  1. Cut public employee numbers.

  2. Cut their wages.

  3. Cut mostly all but vital services.

  4. Cut taxes (especially for businesses).

No matter what they say public spending, and public debt spending is not going to do a damn thing. It never has, and never will. Even go back to the Great Depression era, and the only thing that really did anything to get us in a boom was WW2. Prior to that things were going up but very slowly, and it was mixed with a couple recessions in the mean time (besides the GD in the early 30’s).

Not only are Obama’s policies failures but they couldn’t have come at a worse time with 2 wars, and the economy in the state that its in. We got through not as bad Clinton during the 90’s because of the computer age coming to a boom. We don’t have anything like that now to fall back on. Theres no huge growth industry at all right now.

[b]WASHINGTON – President Obama is pressing Congress to approve emergency aid money to support economic recovery and help avoid widespread layoffs of public workers, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

Congressional leaders received a letter from the president asking for almost $50 billion for distribution to state and local governments, saying that increased spending is “urgent and unavoidable,” the Post reported. The money would protect the jobs of teachers, police and firefighters.

“Because the urgency is high—many school districts, cities and states are already being forced to make these layoffs,” Obama wrote, “these provisions must be passed as quickly as possible.”

Obama’s plea comes despite last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, which worked to stabilize the failing economy, but did little to help the country’s high unemployment rate. At 9.7 percent, unemployment is nearly the same as it was a year ago.

Many economists are optimistic that packages such as this one could lower unemployment, but member of neither party seem eager to allow further spending; Republican concerns over record deficits are making Democrats think twice about approving more of Obama’s costly initiatives, the Post reported.

Obama, however, expressed that spending and national debt reduction could go hand-in-hand.
“These measures to jump-start private sector job creation, avoid massive layoffs at the local and state levels and help the unemployed are critical and timely ways to further that economic recovery,” the president wrote, adding that “robust economic growth is essential for achieving deficit reduction.”

Lawmakers remained skeptical.

“Democrats are showing either that they just don’t get it on this issue of the debt, or that they just don’t care,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a reaction to the letter. “You can understand the American people’s skepticism when they’re told that simply adding more government
is the solution to government’s previous failures."

Click here to read more on this story from the Washington Post.[/b]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/13/obama-appeals-congress-billion-emergency-aid/

$800B wasnt enough apparently. Shadow bailout of govt unions, watch this $50B go to union dominated states

Words fail me…

Shadow baliout? Corrupt activity? Pay-for-play? Federal tax dollars handed to unions?

No, this was dismissed as crazy people talk in '08: make way for more more monuments to dearest leader.

Got anything to back this up? I just don’t see this as realistic. This is coming from a gov. employee that could walk tomorrow and easily double my salary in the private sector. Most people without families (no worry about job security) do this, and it can be tough to retain upper level federal employees. If you’re talking about janitors, then maybe. If you’re talking about someone with job skills, I doubt it.

I am highly trained, educated, and a performer, yet I type this from a small one-bedroom apartment. I believe this falls the way of the $1million hammer, or Mattel M-16. IOWs BS.

I am against it and I am a public employee.

My state is fiscially responsible and runs a balanced budget and has for years.

We did not go on a drunken binge the last few years like certain blue states did.

As long as we bail out Kali and NY, they will never learn to live within their means.

This is like giving more alcohol to a drunk.

The problem with that Fed salary being twice the private salary is it neglects to consider that a disproportinate amount of public employees tend to be clustered around large urban areas where $80,000 a year is nothing. $40,000 in Okalahoma goes farther than $100,000 does in New York or DC.

Tht said, I wish I made half what my Federal counterparts make.

Really? It has always been the opposite in my experience. Are we talking blue collar or white collar work? High level Fed Execs top out just above $100K, which is entry level for that type of position in the private sector. I understand the locality issue, but feds get some pretty hefty locality bumps depending on where you live. For example: my salary is about 15-20% higher in a large metro area than it would be in the rural midwest.

ETA: I don’t think that I deserve any type of “stimulus” I just question the figure given in the OP.

Many gov jobs come with COLA or cost of living allowance.

Average wage indexes:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Number of 100k+ Federal employees jumps:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Bottom line is multiple sources put private sector average in the 40-50k a year range. Multiple sources put Fed average wage at 70-80k a year range. COLA is seperate, and depends on where the person is. COLA can be in the thousands for a person working in San Fransisco, and mere couple hundred bucks for someone in say OK.

Why are you even talking about Fed. jobs, when this is about state and local?

I know the local government here had a hiring freeze last year, they are just starting to hire again. The pay range for those public employees here is pretty low by all standards.

depends if you are in a union state or not. Wanna bet how much of that money goes to Cali, Chicago, NJ, NY, etc

Here in PA my friends wife has been a teacher for less than 5 years and makes around 70k, they just went on strike a couple months ago, not too mention not exactly the best district either. Penn Hills, for you sw PA mbrs. It just so happens that my insurance company handles that districts health insurance and she told me they pay 5% for benefits. I just happened to have been adjusting some claims when an employee of that districts was on my list, I had to look at the benefits to adjust a claim. They pay next to nothing, copays for office visits, maybe a small ded. Nothing like the rest of us, they have true “cadillac” plans. After working at the insurance company for 3 years. You wanna know who has “cadillac” plans, UNIONS and GOVN’T workers, that’s it, I can vouch that none of us private sector employees have “cadillac” plans, not even priests and nuns that take a vow of poverty have the benefits they do:mad:

That is how its supposed to be. Government jobs were supposed to be lower than private industry but secure, and come with good benefits. They were also supposed to be hard to get.

I can go to the two surround counties, and larger cities in my areas and there are HUNDREDS of public jobs listed…most of them making more than the average job around here. Now many (not all) public jobs are easier to get, pay more, and have better benefits. Some of the cops around here are making well into double digits, and some triple digits including OT and benefits. My wife is going through nursing school, and although most of the public nursing jobs pay less per HR with the benefits they are selling come out to be 10-20k a year more than private sector.

My local city had a meter reader job for 25/hr with full excellent benefits. Even the “summer help” no experience required jobs were starting at 15/hr or TWICE minimum wage.

Well 6 years ago I quit one of those public servant jobs, worst mistake I have ever made, and am now trying to become re-employed. This city has kept salaries reasonable, about 10 years ago they cut the fire and police promotional raises or they would have had to lay people off.

Comparing the average Federal wage to the average private sector wage is still comparing apples to oranges. Until a comparison is done by profession and responsibility levels, it’s all just rhetoric.

You cannot just lump a group together, compare it with another, unequal group and call it good.

Table 2 on this page http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm shows what I am talking about.

And all the money we send overseas, as well as all of the ridiculous entitlement programs our government provides have nothing to do with our economic predicament either. [read: sarcasm]

Our problems really have to do with DEBT, and not being able to tell anyone “No,” anymore.

C’mon. Repeat after me: “No.”

Just in time for union campaign contributions to democrats!

So transparent, it’s not even like they’re trying to hide it anymore.

I agree with the above poster. this is all about paying the unions back for the election.

Why bother hiding if the media is more than happy to run interference?

Federal jobs were hard to get until politicians realized that they could create a permanent constituency out of it… then obviously all you need to do is open the flood gates.

Federal employees include everyone from janitors up to POTUS…