ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

What is the Biggest Inequality in America? [F12 704]

Updated on June 29, 2019

The Unfunded Government Employee Retirement System

The answer to what is the big problem of inequality in America

What is a Federal Public Servant?

  • The inequities between the federal employee and the private sector employee

While the democrats keep talking about increasing the federal income tax on the rich, and blaming the republicans for the tax cuts the democrats claim benefit the republican backers. The real truth is that there are rich people backing both parties.

  • While the democrats and the republicans play the search for the guilty on the rich and the taxes, and how there isn't a fair distribution of wealth. The real issue that isn't being discussed on how unfair are distribution of benefits between the rich benefits of the government employees, and the poorer benefits of the non government employees. That is what this article is all about.

We keep hearing about the income inequity and the rich aren't taxed enough. Yet, there seems to be little interest in the inequity of people working for the federal government versus those working in the private sector.

Most benefits received by federal employees have no real equivalent in the private sector. The question is not that they have very expensive perks, but why do we the taxpayers have to pay for them? Shouldn't they be equal to what is available in the private sector?

These are the two biggest benefits.

Retirement

Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), a Defined Benefits Retirement.

Health Care

Federal Employee Healthcare System (FEHS), Very Excellent and Expensive Health Benefits.

Private Sector Equivalent

There are no private sector equivalents


Social Security a bonus for federal workers, a staple for non government workers.

The Federal Employee gets the following from being employed by the federal government.

• A Thrift Savings Plan is also provided to keep after an employee leaves Federal service.

Social Security

If Social Security is in trouble, then how can the government afford their workers private pensions and health benefits? • Congress, can't make a decision in a presidential election year to help the economy is worrying about the SS failure in 2041, shouldn't they be more effective at recovery for the economy from the 2008 government caused economic meltdown.

Retirement

The taxpayers should be wondering how they can afford government retirement and benefit packages. A dozen members of Congress in 2008 spent most of their time and energy trying to get a new job (US President), • While getting paid for their current jobs in congress. They sucked up over 500 million dollars for their campaigns with none of that money helping the citizens or the economy. At the same time, Congress as well as the states refused to reduce or eliminate taxes on gasoline for the summer. That makes congress part of the energy and economy crisis.

Social Security is a TAX, part of FICA Taxes and it was never more than a piggy bank for the politicians. Congress caused Social Security to be where it is today, just as they have created oil shortage scams, dot com and and the housing/banking collapse. Social Security recipients are not to blame for the burden on their children and the future generations. SS problems are totally a product of congress, especially the democrats that created the system.

Compare Social Security with that of FERS.

Contributions SS continue as long as you earn a wage, even after retirement. The retirement age for SS is between 65 and 70 for full benefits.

Federal Employee Retirement (FERs)

The government retirement is a Defined Benefits Pension with a fixed contribution period, and once they have met that time, they no longer pay into their retirement. The retirement age for some government workers is 20 years on the job, and some have retired before 55 years of age with 2 full pensions. .

Death Benefits

SS is $255, FERS pensions have a beneficiary.

Many people contributing to SS for a lifetime can die before retirement age don't get any return on their contributions. Government and even union retirements have defined contributions and their contributions are being invested to increase until they retire.

Are Contributions Invested? Social Security System

• Contributions are earmarked, but they are really a tax and it resides in the general fund for Congress to drain.

• SS would have been better off today, even if SS contributions were turned into the individuals US Saving Bonds. This would be a fairer system as the individual's contributions would be earmarked for them. The savings bonds would be returning interest and the longer they contributed the more they would accumulate. Any money in their SS account would be available to their heirs, if they were to die before they could retire. This is certainly not the best SS plan, but it sure beats the current one. The people that work for," We the People" should not have a better pension plan.

• Most private employers don't give their employees benefits as good as those given to government workers. Most employees don't have the government job security.

• Non government, non union workers are for the most part stuck with the "at will clause", which allows employers to terminate employees at will without cause.

• Medical insurance is uncommon as a benefit to non government workers as well.

• My point is that we don't need to have the congressional piggy bank called SS It is an absurd, unfair system that Congress has brought to its knees and now it blames the contributors because they have retirement expectations under that system.

• Congress should start back at 1934 and work their way to today and treat the contributions as if it were a government pension, and determine what the balance sheet would show profit or loss. That includes having to pay heirs for contributors that died before retirement.

• If Congress can bankrupt the SS System and mess up retiree’s expectations, then congress can either give non government workers the same plan that government workers have had in the last half century or force everyone into the SS system with no private retirement plans.

• Like the oil crisis, SS is something that Congress chose to avoid solving.

Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)

The Public Servant Retirement

Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)

FERS has more features and benefits than anything the the master can get in the private sector. FERS gives employees more control over the amount of their retirement benefits. • It also allows more flexibility in deciding when to retire. If you stay with the Federal Government until retirement, you also receive good benefits based on FERS coverage. This is a superior plan for retirement than Social Security. It is a defined benefits plan, meaning the benefit will never be lower, and in cases like 2008 economic meltdown, these benefits remained intact, while 401K's plummeted.

When the Social Security Program started government workers were exempted from having to participate in it. But now they do, because Social Security turned out to be Ponzi Scheme and it needed new blood to keep it going or it would fail, and to keep it afloat Congress forced some more bodies to row the sinking ship.

The point of this hub is to show the poor deal that the "people", who are supposed to be the masters of these government employees, are forced to pay into Social Security as their primary retirement plan. Government workers, our public Servants have a real retirement plan administered by a private organization (not the government, like SS) to ensure that retirement benefits can be paid to government retirees.

• These benefits run close to the salary that they made when they were working, while Social Security benefits pay a thimble of what people were making when they were still working.

FERS builds on the Social Security credits that employees have or may earn in the future from non-Federal work.

Why should public servants get the rewards that their masters don't get?

Compare the government employee benefits with yours


FERS

• Government workers not only have defined retirement plans, but they have excellent health benefits provided by we the people.

• The people that work for the people have protected jobs, retirements and health benefits that the people can no longer get from their private employers.

• In fact, by Congress allowing private employers to create the" at will" work clause in their company policies, they have provided employment, at the whim of the employer allowing discriminatory acts by the employer to frequently occur without challenge.

• Government workers have a contract that binds them to their job.

• The government is incapable of handling economic matters and they should have privatized the SS system to run in a manner similar to that of the government employees. In that system, the government worker has a defined contribution based on their contribution and their length of service. They can also afford to retire in 20 or 30 years as well as starting a new career and probably retire from that before they are 65.

• Many government jobs also provide an index for inflation and some of them provide 75 to 100% of their salary when they retired.

Why should government workers have retirements and benefits that the rest of the people can only have in their dreams?


Advantages of FERS

• Take most of your retirement benefits with you when you leave Federal service and add to them in your future jobs.

• Instead of decreasing in total value, most of your benefits will continue to grow.

• You earn more SSy credits at your next job.

• Agency Matching Contributions and attributable earnings, and if vested, the Agency Automatic (1%) Contributions and attributable earnings, in your Thrift Savings Plan account can be transferred to an Individual Retirement Arrangement or other eligible retirement plan.

• Leave your Thrift Savings Plan account balance in the Plan and it continues to accumulate earnings based on your investment decisions.

• If you withdraw your Basic Benefit contributions, you receive interest on that money.

• More control over the amount of your retirement benefits.

• You decide how much to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan and where money is invested. Contributions are matched by agency contributions. For the first 5%.

• Minimum Service Requirement [MSA] - Receive reduced benefits after only 10 years of service once you reach your Minimum Retirement Age, whether or not you reach that age while a Government employee. You do not have to wait until age 62.

• Early Annuity Eligibility - If you leave with at least 30 years of service with the Federal Government before retirement, FERS lets you receive full retirement benefits as soon as you reach the Minimum Retirement Age or 20 years of service when you are at least 60.. You do not have to wait until age 62.

----------

Disadvantages of FERS

You have to pay more than the 7.0% that the Basic Benefit and Social Security require to get the most out of FERS,

Take advantage of the Thrift Savings Plan, especially if you are an upper income employee, because SS makes up a smaller percentage of retirement income.

You could lose some benefit dollars if your earnings are more than the allowed amount. If you continue to work after you start receiving the FERS Special Retirement Supplement or SS,

The [COLA] cost-of-living adjustment FERS provides (CPI minus 1%) does not completely make up for inflation if the increase in the Consumer Price Index is more than 2%. Also, cost-of-living adjustments do not start until you are age 62, even if you retire sooner


The Cost of Government relative to prosperity

The United States cannot prosper with the heavy weight of a large and very expensive government. The size of the government today accounting for all workers is about 12 to 15 million people, as it has been for decades is just too large. It has a redundant and inefficient workforce and just too many workers. These workers are a tax burden on the country. , From their salaries to their benefits, including a lucrative pension plan. This pension plan burdens the people even after they retire and they retire in the tens of thousands every year. This adds up to a large and increasing number. It is like paying for the horse even after it has left the barn for good. The country just can't prosper with that much dead weight on its back.

These government workers are a double threat tax burden as they also can get Social Security.

---------------

Congressional Perks make the government more expensive and the country less prosperous.

Do away with their Special Retirement system and their health program

• (They should have same health programs everyone else in America does).

• When they are through serving their country, they should go back to being private citizens. They should view their service as a privilege; after all it was designed to be a part time job to represent the voice of the people,

• NOT the special interest groups and those who can do favors for them.

If Congress doesn’t like this proposal, then politicians shouldn't run for office in Congress.

I have taken the following from the government website because many readers want facts to backup conjecture and opinion.

"According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis;

Federal employees earn an average annual compensation of $106,871, including pay and benefits,

• compared to just $53,288 in the private sector,"

• Says Dennis Damp, author of "The Book of U.S. Government Jobs," citing statistics gathered in late 2005 and early 2006.

• Damp adds that the average federal salary alone, not counting benefits, is more than $67,000.

The government employee benefits include job security, good health insurance, a retirement plan and steady raises.

• The benefits at the federal level are much, much better than in the private sector

• Each year, regardless of the economic situation, they receive substantial raises averaging approximately 3.5 percent.

Just as in the private sector, pay and benefits are going to vary by position. Most government jobs are arranged in pay grades and steps, or levels, within each pay grade.

For example, the federal government uses a "general schedule," or GS, pay grade for most of its white-collar workers. A little more than two-thirds of the federal civilian work force is classified under this system.

Senior executives have their own pay schedules, as do blue-collar workers, the Foreign Service and a number of federal agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are 15 GS classifications. Each step within each grade has an automatic raise built into it, a structure many state and local employers have also adopted.

Added into the federal pay scale are cost-of-living adjustments.

• Extra cash is paid to employees who live in more expensive places. The basic range for a GS-5 (a classification held by 5.3 percent of the federal work force) without locality pay is $29,725 to $38,641.

In many cases, the government wages compare favorably to private-sector pay. This is certainly not true in all fields or locations.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

• The mean annual wage for an accountant in the private sector is $49,690.

• That is, half the accountants made more, half made less.

Compare that with accountants in the federal, state and local government sectors:

• Federal: $58,360. • State: $46,320. • Local: $37,050.

A 2002 benefits study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

• employers paid an average of about $18,000 per person in benefits --

• And that was the private sector, where benefits are generally not as generous as the government's.

In December 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

• The average cost to a private-sector employer of an employee at $28.11 per hour.

• Wages accounted for $19.62, or 69.8 percent of the cost, meaning that $8.49 went to benefits.

In comparison, state and local governments;

• incurred total compensation costs of $37.73.

Of that amount, $25.04 went to actual wages (68.9% -- less than a % point below the private sector), while $12.69 was spent on benefits, nearly 50% more.

Retirement contributions comprised one major difference between the two.

• While private-sector employers paid $1.24 per hour in retirement benefits (defined and contribution plans),

• State and local governments paid $2.86.

• That's 4.4 percent for private employers versus 7.6 percent for state and local government.

Additionally, state and local government retirement plans;

• Are more heavily weighted toward defined retirement benefits (pension plans) than the private sector.

• Although the majority of civilian retirement plan dollars are spent on defined benefits, contribution plans such as 401(k) s are rapidly gaining in popularity.

In 2008, during the most critical presidential election campaign of our time, there was no mention by either candidate to cut the government workforce or even to reduce their benefits.

• There is also little to no resource conservation to reduce the overhead spending of the government.

• At least in the oil crisis of the 1970s, the government at least talked the conservation of energy by turning of lights.

• Today, the government doesn't even try to give an illusion of cutting costs or reducing expenses and resources.

The main problem for this government not doing their fair share in this economy is that they operate outside of the laws that they make for the rest of us.

• They can job discriminate and not get penalized, where as if it were done in the private sector there would be sanctions applied to the private company.

Many of the same factors that weight down the government jobs can also be applied to union jobs.

• They include job security, automatic pay raises, retirement plans and healthcare benefits. These are found in only senior executive positions in private companies.

Union contracts are responsible for the big problems of the three US Automakers.

• The union wages and benefits bring the operating costs too high and results in a higher vehicle price. This higher price puts the US Automakers at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign automakers that don't have these same high operating costs.

Every worker needs the same protections and benefits that the government worker and the union worker enjoy today. Unfortunately, non union workers and white collar workers have to pay more than their fair share, while receiving no job protection and fewer benefits.

• Ask not what your government can do for you, but ask why the hell they are not feeling the same economic consequences that are being felt by, we the people

Am I jealous, you bet. Do I really think that a trimmer government is more responsive and efficient in running the country, you bet I do.

Once again, I will say that if President Obama is serious about unity, then the rest of the country should have the same paid for benefits that government workers enjoy.

• For example, not Social Security for us and FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System) for them. We should all be able to get the same plan.

The US turned south on the prosperity turnpike

Reduce the size of government, especially the Federal Government.

• The larger the government the hungrier and the bigger it gets and you then have to contribute more to satiate their hunger.

• Your tax contributions become larger and larger, but the government doesn't give you anything more in return.

These are just the federal civilian employees and they account for 2% of the population.

• Now 2% doesn't seem like a lot as it means that 1 out of 50 people is a fed employee but if you factor in that the entire population has a fair number of people that are not working, such as children, retirees, homeless, military, state and local government workers, students, unemployed..Then the figure may be 1 in 30 (big WAG).

My point is that in order for the country to prosper, we have to cut the size and benefits of the government worker (Libertarian concept) and truly simplify the TAX system or replace the IRS with a national tax of maybe 10 to 15% instead. This means, that excluding staples, every time that people buy the high ticket items, they pay their fair share of taxes right then, without a lot of exceptions and paperwork. A million dollar yacht or plane, then contributes its fair share of tax, while the home computer at under several thousands of dollars contributes its fair share at its level and so on. You build the exceptions in at the beginning just like the state sales tax is now. At the same time, you need to produce a viable 3rd political party that is filled with big names hopefully democrats and republicans and independents that will capture significant votes so that you won't be throwing your vote away by voting for them.

• These candidates would not be supported, or influenced by lobbyists and would really listen to the people that elected them. In addition, government workers would only have the same benefits available to the rest of the people. For example, if they have job security then the rest of us have job security and if they can retire at 40 or 50 after 20 years of working then so can we.

• More important than health insurance, we need a working health system. Who ever sold the country on the premise, that prescriptions were not part of the health insurance got away with murder? Over 90% (my guess) of visits to a health care provider result in a prescription being written. It is no different to get a prescription, than it is to have tests and procedures to diagnose your condition. It is also not clear, that these high price prescriptions even do their job or worse they might even make you sicker or more prone to be sick after taking them.

The current and the past education system, at the pre college level is based on the school being paid to have butts in the school room seats.

• This is a waste, as there are a fair number of these butts, that just don't want to be there and at the end of 12 years, didn't learn much and some of them can't even speak or understand English. The results of this system is dismal at best and it would be a better service to provide an inexpensive private or public school system that parents can choose instead of not having a choice because they can't afford it.

Social Security (SS) is a joke and it is in poor taste.

Social Security is a TAX.

• Social Security is a big piggy bank for the politicians to dip into for any reason, without any consideration of paying it back, much less giving fair return for the money that they have pilfered.

• If you keep the Social Security system, then you have to protect the contributions and provide a reasonable rate of return in investing the money. Like a federal retirement plan, you should not have to contribute to the retirement system once they retire.

• This is a problem now because you must pay Social Security until you reach 65 or better. This means that you can contribute to Social Security for 50 years (if you started working a 15), but you only receive the same benefit that a person the only contributed for 5 or more years.

• When a government worker retires after only 20 years of service they don't contribute into their retirement system, they just draw from it. Also, they have included in their retirement a factor of what salary they were at during their service. With Social Security you continue to contribute even after retirement, as long as you continue to work for wages.

----------

================

A Plan for a Better Economy and a Better Country

66

My Plan for a Better Economy and a Better Country

The Basic Plan is to cut down the size and appetite of the 8,000 POUND gorilla, we call the Federal Government.

• Trim him down as well as its perks and feed it like we the people feed.

• The Federal Government was supposed to provide public service and be the servant of the people who are the De Jure Masters. Instead the government became the De Facto Master it get the benefits of a master.

• Where does it say that the people stay in the guest house behind the mansion, while the servants live in the mansion?

• That is what is happening today and for the last several decades. The Federal Employees are just enjoying the lavish niche that was provided to them by Congress. It is not their fault that they are a burden on the rest us. Nevertheless,

• We The People, cannot afford to keep them in Status Quo. We must create a change where the spoils of Congress come back to us.

------------------

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7874/03-15-Federal_Personnel.pdf

-------------

These are just the federal civilian employees and they account for 2% of the population.

• Now 2% doesn't seem like a lot as it means that 1 out of 50 people is a fed employee but

if you factor in that the entire population has a fair number of people that are not working

such as children, retirees, homeless, military, state and local government workers, students, unemployed.....

Then the figure may be 1 in 30 (big WAG).

• My point is that in order for the country to prosper, we have to cut the size and benefits of the government worker (Libertarian concept) and truly simplify the TAX system or replace the IRS with a national tax of maybe 10 to 15% instead. This means that excluding staples every time that the people buy the high ticket items they pay their fair share of taxes right then without a lot of exceptions and paperwork. A million dollar ship or plane then contributes its fair share of tax while the home computer at under several thousands of dollars contributes its fair share at its level and so on. You build the exceptions in at the beginning just like the state sales tax is now.

• At the same time you need to produce a viable 3rd party that is filled with big names hopefully democrats and republicans and independents that will capture significant votes so that you won't be throwing your vote away by voting for them. These candidates would not be supported or influenced by lobbyists and would really listen to the people that elected them.

In addition, government workers would only have the same benefits available to the rest of the people. For example, if they have job security then the rest of us have job security and if they can retire at 40 or 50 after 20 years of working then so can we.

More important than health insurance we need a working beneficial health system.

Who ever sold the country on the premise that prescriptions were not part of the health insurance got away with murder? Over 90% of visits to a health care provider results in a prescription being written. It is no different to get a prescription then it is to have tests and procedures to diagnose your condition. It is also not clear that these high price prescriptions even do their job or worse they might even make you sicker or more prone to be sick after taking them.

The current and the past education system at the pre college level is based on the school being paid to have asses in the school room seats. This is a waste as there are a fair number of these asses that just don't want to be there and at the end of 12 years didn't learn much and some of them can't even speak or understand English. The results of this system is dismal at best and it would be a better service to provide an inexpensive private or public school system that parents can choose instead of not having a choice because they can't afford it.

Social Security is a joke TAX and it is in poor taste.

• SS is a big piggy bank for the politicians to dip into for any reason without any consideration of paying it back much less giving fair return for the money that they have pilfered.

• If you keep the SS system then you have to protect the contributions and provide a reasonable rate of return in investing the money.

• Like a federal retirement plan, you should not have to contribute to the retirement system once they can retire. This is a problem now because you must pay SS until you reach 65 or better. This means that you can contribute to SS for 50 years (if you started working a 15) but you only receive the same benefit that a person the only contributed for 5 or more years. When a government worker retires after only 20 years of service they don't contribute into their retirement system they just draw from it. Also, they have included in their retirement a factor of what salary they were at during their service.

----------------------

=======================

Government and Union Jobs are heavy burdens for the taxpayer and the economy

65

It is not Social Security that is the biggest government debt

IT IS THE GOVERNMENT PENSIONS THAT KEEP INCREASING AS THE SIZE OF THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS INCREASING

Every government worker is a Tax Burden on the Taxpayer!

This especially includes the retired government worker, as the taxpayer is still contribution tax money to their retirement.

---------------

Government and Union Jobs are a big weight for the country to carry during a recession and economic crisis.

• CONGRESS AND GOVERNMENT WORKERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL HEALTHCARE BILL.

• THEY ALREADY HAVE THEIR HEALTHCARE PAID FOR BY US THE TAXPAYER.

ANY NATIONAL HEALTHCARE BILL THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THEM IS GOING TO BE A BURDEN ON US. THE PEOPLE NEED THE KIND OF HEALTHCARE THAT IS BEING LAVISHED UPON THE GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE THE SAME HEALTHCARE PERIOD!

The government is the last place that makes adjustments to a failing economy.

• Think of the movie scene where a plane doesn't have enough fuel to make it to an airport.

• The pilot orders that all non essential equipment be dumped out of the plane to lighten the load and prevent a crash landing.

• In this scenario, all the other passengers on the plane did their job of making the plane load lighter, but the government refused or ignored the pilots order.

• The plane crashes many miles from any airport and there are no survivors.

Government Pensions from the Federal Government, to the State Governments and finally the local government all cost the taxpayers, dearly.

• Pensions are a lifetime tax burden, the lifetime of the pensioner but as the workforce retires, that pension debt to the taxpayer accumulates.

• In California for example, the budget is weighed down by billions to pay for retirement pensions.

In real life, the government has not lightened their workforce burden on the economy. The private corporations and small businesses are being adjusted by the economy, resulting in total failure or layoffs. The private business doesn't have the luxury of making money by printing it or taxing powers.

The retention of a large workforce in the government causes major budget failures. The government then in trying to balance the budget goes automatically to increasing taxes are the expense of lowering their costs. In this case, the costs I am talking about are the government employee salaries and benefits.

When we think of government jobs, we often think of safe but low-paying jobs that will put food on the table, but never put you in a top tax bracket. So you may be surprised to find out that government jobs, when you include benefits, pay on average twice as much as jobs in the private sector. Throw in job security, and government service starts to look very good indeed.

"According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis;

• Federal employees earn an average annual compensation of $106,871, including pay and benefits,

• compared to just $53,288 in the private sector,"

• Says Dennis Damp, author of "The Book of U.S. Government Jobs," citing statistics gathered in late 2005 and early 2006. Damp adds that the average federal salary alone, not counting benefits, is more than $67,000.

The benefits include job security, good health insurance, a retirement plan and steady raises.

The benefits at the federal level are much, much better than in the private sector.

• Each year, regardless of the economic situation, they receive substantial raises averaging approximately 3.5 percent.

There are 15 GS classifications.

• Each step within each grade has an automatic raise built into it, a structure many state and local employers have also adopted.

Added into the federal pay scale are cost-of-living adjustments.

• Extra cash is paid to employees who live in more expensive places. The basic range for a GS-5 (a classification held by 5.3 percent of the federal work force) without locality pay is $29,725 to $38,641.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

• The mean annual wage for an accountant in the private sector is $49,690.

• That is, half the accountants made more, half made less.

Compare that with accountants in the federal, state and local government sectors:

• Federal: $58,360. • State: $46,320. • Local: $37,050.

Number crunching by the hour

A 2002 benefits study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

• employers paid an average of about $18,000 per person in benefits --

• And that was the private sector, where benefits are generally not as generous as the government's.

In December 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

• The average cost to a private-sector employer of an employee at $28.11 per hour.

• Wages accounted for $19.62, or 69.8 percent of the cost, meaning that $8.49 went to benefits.

In comparison, state and local governments;

• Incurred total compensation costs of $37.73.

• Of that amount, $25.04 went to actual wages (68.9 percent -- less than a percentage point below the private sector),

• While $12.69 was spent on benefits, nearly 50 percent more.

• Retirement contributions comprised one major difference between the two.

• While private-sector employers paid $1.24 per hour in retirement benefits (defined and contribution plans),

• State and local governments paid $2.86.

• That's 4.4 percent for private employers versus 7.6 percent for state and local government

-------------------

In 2008, during the most critical presidential election campaign of our time, there was no mention by either candidate to cut the government workforce or even to stop increasing its size.

There is also little to no resource conservation to reduce the overhead spending of the government. At least in the oil crisis of the 1970s, the government at least talked the conservation of energy by turning of lights. Today, the government doesn't even try to give an illusion of cutting costs or reducing expenses and resources.

The main problem for this government not doing their fair share in this economy is that they operate outside of the laws that they make for the rest of us. They can job discriminate and not get penalized, where as if it were done in the private sector there would be sanctions applied to the private company.

Many of the same factors that weight down the government jobs can also be applied to union jobs.

• They include job security, automatic pay raises, retirement plans and healthcare benefits. These are found in only senior executive positions in private companies.

• Union contracts are responsible for the big problems of the three US Automakers. The union wages and benefits bring the operating costs too high and results in a higher vehicle price. This higher price puts the US Automakers at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign automakers that don't have these same high operating costs.

Every worker needs the same protections and benefits that the government worker and the union worker enjoy today. Unfortunately, non union workers and white collar workers have to pay more than their fair share, while receiving no job protection and fewer benefits.

Ask not what your government can do for you, but ask why the hell they are not feeling the same economic consequences that are being felt by, we the people.

----------------

======================

US Governments are Obese and Costly

64

EVERY SUPERFLOUS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS A TAX BURDEN FOR THE TAXPAYER

Government workers don't come free, you the taxpayer have to pay their salary, their benefits and their retirement.

• So, even after they retire, you still pay. As the size of the government goes up, so does the size of their retirees. This accumulates a double tax whammy.

Someone Tell Obama About Arithmetic and Negative Numbers.

US Government Size does matter?

Can you afford the government?

Let’s start out with the size of the Federal Government

The link below takes you to an interesting pdf on the federal employees.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7874/03-15-Federal_Personnel.pdf This link just covers the federal civilian employees and they account for 2% of the population. Now 2% doesn't seem like a lot but it means that 1 out of 50 people is a fed employee. Iif you factor in that the entire population has a fair number of people that are not working, such as children, retirees, homeless, military, state and local government workers, students, unemployed.....then the figure may be 1 in 30 (big WAG).

My point is that in order for the country to prosper we have to cut the size and benefits of the government worker (Libertarian concept) and truly simplify the TAX system or replace the IRS with a national tax of maybe 10 to 15% instead.

• This means that excluding staples every time that the people buy the high ticket items they pay their fair share of taxes right then without a lot of exceptions and paperwork. A million dollar ship or plane then contributes its fair share of tax while the home computer at under several thousands of dollars contributes its fair share at its level and so on. You build the exceptions in at the beginning just like the state sales tax is now.

• At the same time you need to produce a viable 3rd party that is filled with big names hopefully democrats and republicans and independents that will capture significant votes so that you won't be throwing your vote away by voting for them.

• These candidates would not be supported or influenced by lobbyists and would really listen to the people that elected them. In addition, government workers would only have the same benefits available to the rest of the people.

• For example, if they have job security then the rest of us have job security and if they can retire at 40 or 50 after 20 years of working then so can we.

More important than health insurance we need a working health system.

• Who ever sold the country on the premise that prescriptions were not part of the health insurance got away with murder?

• Over 90% of visits to a health care provider results in a prescription being written. It is no different to get a prescription then it is to have tests and procedures to diagnose your condition.

• It is also not clear that these high price prescriptions even do their job or worse they might even make you sicker or more prone to be sick after taking them.

The current and the past education system at the pre college level is based on the school being paid to have asses in the school room seats.

• This is a waste as there are a fair number of these asses that just don't want to be there and at the end of 12 years didn't learn much and some of them can't even speak or understand English. The results of this system is dismal at best and it would be a better service to provide an inexpensive private or public school system that parents can choose instead of not having a choice because they can't afford it.

Social Security is a joke and it is in poor taste.

• SS is a big piggy bank for the politicians to dip into for any reason without any consideration of paying it back much less giving fair return for the money that they have pilfered.

• If you keep the SS system then you have to protect the contributions and provide a reasonable rate of return in investing the money. Like a federal retirement plan, you should not have to contribute to the retirement system once they can retire.

This is a problem now, because you must pay SS until you reach 65 or better.

• This means that you can contribute to SS for 50 years (if you started working a 15) but you only receive the same benefit that a person the only contributed for 5 or more years.

• When a government worker retires after only 20 years of service they don't contribute into their retirement system they just draw from it. Also, they have included in their retirement a factor of what salary they were at during their service.

What is true about the Federal Government, that is preventing the US from being prosperous are also true of state and local governments.

• Local governments are on the brink of financial failure and they go after the state to bail them out. The states at least 43 of them are also in budget deficit failure in the billions, so they are going for federal aid to help them.

• These governments mismanaged their finances to create their problems and now they are coming after you to bail them out by paying more taxes

The Governments in the US are Obese

The Federal, State and Local governments have gorged themselves for decades on a high fat pork diet.

• Today, the governments across the nation waddle with their bellies hanging on the ground.

• They are lethargic, flatulent and slow witted in handling their assigned duties.

• Instead of getting in shape, shedding pounds and becoming healthy and improving their work, they binge on cakes, cookies, bacon, more pork and other rich foods.

The point is that while the private sector has many companies large and small going out of business.

• Those companies that are still in business are laying off tens of thousands of their workers. The government on the other hand is not sharing in these hard times. Why, because unlike private companies, the government can tax and tax their way into the black. They do this at the expense of the non government workers, many of whom can barely afford to make ends meet.

The government is like a huge tape worm in the belly of our country and the more we make the bigger they get.

The problem is that "we the people" are not partaking of the wealth we are earning in our jobs and investments. The government in that situation is like a parasite. They won't kill you but they will make you very sick and that is what they have done to our economy.

• We had our chance last year to elect candidates that would have made a healthy change for us. From the looks of it, the prognosis of a healthy change is dim.

• The government is setup like the queen bee and the rest of the country are the worker ants. I don't believe that was the concept of the founders when they formed what they thought was a more perfect union.

• Worker ant doesn't seem to identify with "We The People".

• We use the term public servant to refer to the government and its workers but instead we are serving the government.

• The government takes from us and throws some scraps back to us.

Today, there are talks about fairness and things being un-constitutional. It seems to ducky little me that a good argument can be made about the constitutionality of the current Income Tax System. Is it fair to tax people different percentage just because of the amount of money that they earn? Even the tithe to God is only 10% and it applied to everyone.

Why then is it constitutional to single out different people just because of their wealth. Don't get me wrong, I am not championing for the wealthy but trying to demonstrate the unfairness of the tax system. Taxing people at the same percentage is fair because the dollar amount of tax is higher when you make more money.

For example, 10% of $1000 = $100

10% of %100,000 = $10,000

In This case, the person with the higher income is paying $9,900 more.

If we apply a %30 tax to the person making $100,000 then that person is paying $29,900 more than those in the 10% bracket.

In essence, the government is unfairly singly out the higher income people and discriminating against them. The government has always thrown out the constitution in matters concerning money. Another example of that is when you file your income tax return. To file a return, you in essence give up your 5th Amendment constitutional protection against self incrimination. Signing your signature to the tax return under penalty of perjury you swear that you have provided the government with all of your income. That includes income, monies and assets that you have acquired illegally. Rob a bank, get some money then you must declare it on your tax form.

The government is forcing you to incriminate yourself. Again, I am not advocating the deeds of the bad guy but I am trying to make a point on unconstitutionality. There are three possible crimes in the tax example, and they are as follows;

1. Income Tax Evasion (if you don't file a return or don't include all your income)

2. Perjury (you lied about your true income)

3. The underlying crime that generated your ill gotten gains (de facto confession)

Technically forcing you to incriminate yourself should be unconstitutional. Isn't a crime a crime, apparently not when you mess with the government"s money.

Published Date

12/12/2009

The Federal, State and Local governments have gorged themselves for decades on a high fat pork diet.

The private sector keeps shedding workers while the government can't spell "Layoff"

Companies that have avoided layoffs amid this recession are the exception, not the rule.

• U.S. employers have cut 5.1 million jobs since the recession began, including 663,000 last month alone. But some are looking to shave costs while keeping their work forces intact, so that when the economy does turn around, they'll be ready to ratchet up production again.

Today, the governments across the nation waddle with their bellies hanging on the ground.

• They are lethargic, flatulent and slow witted in handling their assigned duties. Instead of getting in shape, shedding pounds and becoming healthy and improving their work, they binge on cakes, cookies, bacon, more pork and other rich foods.

The point is that while the private sector has many companies large and small going out of business or trimming down. Those companies that are still in business are laying off tens of thousands of their workers. The government on the other hand is not sharing in these hard times. Why, because unlike private companies, the government can tax and tax their way into the black. They do this at the expense of the non government workers, many of whom can barely afford to make ends meet.

Even the Billionaires which cater to Billionaires are filing for bankruptcy. The reason for their filing is the billionaires are cutting back in their spending. The government doesn't even make a pretense why they are so bloated and why they are forcing the national into economic malnutrition.

• The government is like a huge tape worm in the belly of our country and the more we make the bigger they get. The problem is that we the people are not partaking of the wealth we are earning in our jobs and investments. The government in that situation is like a parasite. They won't kill you but they will make you very sick and that is what they have done to our economy.

We had our chance last year to elect candidates that would have made a healthy change for us. From the looks of it, the prognosis of a healthy change is dim. The government is setup like the queen bee and the rest of the country are the worker ants. I don't believe that was the concept of the founders when they formed what they thought was a more perfect union. Worker ant doesn't seem to identify with "We The People".

We use the term public servant to refer to the government and its workers but instead we are serving the government. The government takes from us and throws some scraps back to us.

Today, there are talks about fairness and things being un-constitutional. It seems to me, that a good argument can be made about the constitutionality of the current Income Tax System. Is it fair to tax people different percentage just because of the amount of money that they earn? Even the tithe to God is only 10% and it applied to everyone.

Why then is it constitutional to single out different people just because of their wealth. Don't get me wrong, I am not championing for the wealthy but trying to demonstrate the unfairness of the tax system. Taxing people at the same percentage is fair because the dollar amount of tax is higher when you make more money.

• For example, 10% of $1000 = $100

• 10% of %100,000 = $10,000

In This case, the person with the higher income is paying $9,900 more.

If we apply a %30 tax to the person making $100,000 then that person is paying $29,900 more than those in the 10% bracket.

In essence, the government is unfairly singly out the higher income people and discriminating against them. The government has always thrown out the constitution in matters concerning money. Another example of that is when you file your income tax return. To file a return, you in essence give up your 5th Amendment constitutional protection against self incrimination. Signing your signature to the tax return under penalty of perjury you swear that you have provided the government with all of your income. That includes income, monies and assets that you have acquired illegally. Rob a bank, get some money then you must declare it on your tax form.

The government is forcing you to incriminate yourself. Again, I am not advocating the deeds of the bad guy but I am trying to make a point on unconstitutionality. There are three possible crimes in the tax example, and they are as follows;

1. Income Tax Evasion (if you don't file a return or don't include all your income)

2. Perjury (you lied about your true income)

3. The underlying crime that generated your ill gotten gains (de facto confession)

Technically forcing you to incriminate yourself should be unconstitutional. Isn't a crime a crime, apparently not when you mess with the government"s money.

Another major point that is missed concerns th real culprit to the problems of the country in 2008-2009. It is the Congress, that for the last half century has built or overbuilt an empire that continues to expand even in the midst of an economic meltdown. The Congress caused this meltdown with its fat ladened do nothing for the people government.

The focus should be on Congress and not the financial, banking and automobile industries. If Congress passes laws to regulate areas of the private sector, then they should be held accountable when it creates a major disaster for the country. Congress was impotent in 2008 and "hail Mary'ed" the bailout which spent $350 billion with no positive results to the economy. The Congress and President Obama continue to show signs that they don't have a clue on how to put the Humpty Dumpty economy back together again.

Trimming down government would make for less need to continue to tax the people for their mistakes. It would also be a sign of them taking ownership for the problems that they have caused to the economy. The government is the 800 billion pound guerilla that is eating our bananas.

If Microsoft is laying off, then why not the government

The Government should follow the trend of the private sector

The government has too many workers and the economy is to weak to support them.

• Microsoft layoffs should be evidence of the real strength of the country's economy, critical.

• Microsoft, Intel, Google, Yahoo, Circuit City and numerous major department stores have all been affected by the current economy. Some of these victims had layoffs, while others closed stores and some just ceased to do business.

When these business giants fall prey to the economy, how can the government show no ill effects? The federal government has 2.7 million federal workers and over 7 million contract workers.

• How many of them have been laid off or their departments or agencies closed?

• Homeland Security alone created over 120,000 jobs in the federal government. If Microsoft and Intel can layoff 11,000 workers then why can't the federal government?

In addition to the federal government there are over bloated state and local governments that need to go the Microsoft route in this economy. Just as Microsoft didn't layoff the cream of their crop, then neither do the governments need to layoff their cream or police and fire.

• The government bloated themselves during the boom years, and apparently they didn't consider that bad times might come their way, ever. Well, they are here now so it is time to get trim and fast.

There will be no change in Washington as long as government is immune to the need, of severely cutting back their workforce during a bad economy

As for congress!

do away with their Special Retirement system and their health program (they should have same health programs everyone else in America does). When they are through serving their country they go back to being private citizens. They should view their service as a privilege; after all it was designed to be a part time job to represent the voice of the people, NOT the special interest groups and those who can do favors for them.

If they don’t like this proposal then don’t run for office

How Can The Government Keep Their Heads While All Around Them Heads Are Being Lost? The country has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and many companies have gone out of business or they have been merged into another company.

• The governments (federal, state and local) are also in this bad economy but they are no feeling the consequences. How can the people of this country afford to support these bloated and over paid government workers?

• The answer is that we can’t continue to support them. These workers must follow the trend of the private sector. In the current economy, that means there should be significant cuts in the size of the government. The increase in the size of the government was made during the boom years of the dot com and the subsequent credit and housing boom.

• The government treated the boom as the normal condition of the economy, it never considered a busted economy. If it is OK to significantly expand the government in the boom time, then it is also OK to significantly downsize the government in the bust time.The government is using its power to tax, to resist the need to reduce their work force. This power is not available to the private sector. The governments of this country should be run like a business rather than a Monarchy. The Monarchy here would be the government itself, rather than a single person.

A private company that cannot balance its books will go out of business.

• A private company that is in financial trouble will reduce its costs in order to become profitable or at least slow the flow of red.

• The private company will also look at all of its expenses and make decisions on which products will be discontinued as not being profitable.

• The private company will also lay off workers, departments, projects and other expenses to make a profit.

• There are many other means that a private company can take to get out of financial trouble but the point that has to be made is that government doesn’t do any of them.

• The government if it was privatized would go out of business because they don’t have a product that is profitable and they don’t know how to run a business.

If the King spends more money than he has available to him, it is just a simple matter of raising more tax money.

• The King and the government share this mechanism to stay in power.

• The presidential election campaign for this recent election involved over a billion dollars of campaign funds.

• Senator Hillary Clinton lasted the longest of the contenders but she ultimately failed because of money in the bank. She ran in the red and if she did this in her private life, then she would have had to file for bankruptcy. If this would have happened when she was in office, then more money would have been taken in to the treasury by raising the taxes on the people.

The government should provide for its workers, no better salaries or benefits than what is available to the average private sector worker.

• How else will the government understand what the common people that they sever are going through in their daily life?

• The government is essentially playing the part of Marie Antoinette, during a famine caused by a bread shortage. Upon being alerted by a messenger that her people were starving due to having little bread to eat, she is said to have replied "Let them eat cake.”

• Putting the government in a parody of this, the statement from the government when told millions of Americans are jobless and many are homeless, they would say to the people let them raises their taxes.

There is no reasonable explanation, why government public servants should be treated like a king while the people that they serve are treated like paupers.

• Congress has always been above the laws that they themselves pass for the rest of us. Simply put, it means that the laws don’t apply to them and they can with impunity violate them.

Say to President Barack Hussein Obama, that unity means the government workers cannot have better job security, benefits and salaries then the rest of the workers in the country.

• What we have today is not unity it is unbalanced in favor of the public servant.

We the "people" had our chance to change the system in our favor with our vote.

I don’t think we used our votes wisely. Do you?

Care and Feeding of Government Workers

59

The government has not lightened their workforce burden on the economy.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE GOVERNMENT?

THIS IS TAX TIME, $$$$$$$

THIS IS WHERE YOU THE TAXPAYER PUT IN THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO HELP THESE MONEY DIET PHOBIC CREATURES, FROM REDUCING THEIR SIZE AND GIRTH.

YOU ARE THE ENABLER THROUGH YOUR TAXES.

• BECAUSE EACH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS A TAX BURDEN ON THE COUNTRY.

• Yes, Government Employees are also taxpayers, but they are also getting the perks and the bonues, and the benefits and an expensive to the taxpayer retirement package.

• As the size of the government Increases, so does the tax needed to pay for these workers. The more workers the more taxes. And the government has significantly increased their size even in the past two years.

The private corporations and small businesses are being adjusted by the economy, resulting in total failure or layoffs. The private business doesn't have the luxury of making money by printing it or taxing powers.

• The retention of a large workforce in the government causes major budget failures. The government in trying to balance the budget goes automatically to increasing taxes instead of lowering their costs. In this case, the costs I am talking about are the government employee salaries and benefits.

When we think of government jobs, we often think of safe but low-paying jobs that will put food on the table, but never put you in a top tax bracket. So you may be surprised to find out that government jobs, when you include benefits, pay on average twice as much as jobs in the private sector. Throw in job security, and government service starts to look very good indeed.

"According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis;

• Federal employees earn an average annual compensation of $106,871, including pay and benefits,

• compared to just $53,288 in the private sector,"

• says Dennis Damp, author of "The Book of U.S. Government Jobs," citing statistics gathered in late 2005 and early 2006.Damp adds that the average federal salary alone, not counting benefits, is more than $67,000.

The benefits include job security, good health insurance, a retirement plan and steady raises.

• The benefits at the federal level are much, much better than in the private sector. Each year, regardless of the economic situation, they receive substantial raises averaging approximately 3.5 percent.

• Just as in the private sector, pay and benefits are going to vary by position. Most government jobs are arranged in pay grades and steps, or levels, within each pay grade.

For example, the federal government uses a "general schedule," or GS, pay grade for most of its white-collar workers. A little more than two-thirds of the federal civilian work force is classified under this system.

Senior executives have their own pay schedules, as do blue-collar workers, the foreign service and a number of federal agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are 15 GS classifications.

• Each step within each grade has an automatic raise built into it, a structure many state and local employers have also adopted.

Added into the federal pay scale are cost-of-living adjustments.

• Extra cash is paid to employees who live in more expensive places. The basic range for a GS-5 (a classification held by 5.3 percent of the federal work force) without locality pay is $29,725 to $38,641.

In many cases, the government wages compare favorably to private-sector pay. But certainly not in all fields or locations.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

• the mean annual wage for an accountant in the private sector is $49,690.

• That is, half the accountants made more, half made less.

Compare that with accountants in the federal, state and local government sectors:

• Federal: $58,360. • State: $46,320. • Local: $37,050.

Number crunching by the hour

A 2002 benefits study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

• employers paid an average of about $18,000 per person in benefits --

• and that was the private sector, where benefits are generally not as generous as the government's.

In December 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

• the average cost to a private-sector employer of an employee at $28.11 per hour.

• Wages accounted for $19.62, or 69.8 percent of the cost, meaning that $8.49 went to benefits.

In comparison, state and local governments;

• Incurred total compensation costs of $37.73.

• Of that amount, $25.04 went to actual wages (68.9 percent -- less than a percentage point below the private sector),

• while $12.69 was spent on benefits, nearly 50 percent more.

Retirement contributions comprised one major difference between the two.

• While private-sector employers paid $1.24 per hour in retirement benefits (defined and contribution plans),

• State and local governments paid $2.86.

• That's 4.4 percent for private employers versus 7.6 percent for state and local government.

Additionally, state and local government retirement plans;

• are more heavily weighted toward defined retirement benefits (pension plans) than the private sector.

• Although the majority of civilian retirement plan dollars are spent on defined benefits, contribution plans such as 401(k)s are rapidly gaining in popularity.

In 2008, during the most critical presidential election campaign of our time, there was no mention by either candidate to cut the government workforce or even to reduce their benefits. There is also little to no resource conservation to reduce the overhead spending of the government. At least in the oil crisis of the 1970s, the government talked the conservation of energy by turning of lights. Today, the government doesn't even try to give an illusion of cutting costs or reducing expenses and resources.

The main problem for this government not doing their fair share in this economy is that they operate outside of the laws that they make for the rest of us. They can job discriminate and not get penalized, where as if it were done in the private sector there would be sanctions applied to the private company.

Many of the same factors that weight down the government jobs can also be applied to union jobs. They include job security, automatic pay raises, retirement plans and healthcare benefits. These are found in only senior executive positions in private companies.

Union contracts are responsible for the big problems of the three US Automakers. The union wages and benefits bring the operating costs too high and results in a higher vehicle price. This higher price puts the US Automakers at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign automakers that don't have these same high operating costs.

• Every worker needs the same protections and benefits that the government worker and the union worker enjoy today. Unfortunately, non union workers and white collar workers have to pay more than their fair share, while receiving no job protection and fewer benefits.

• Ask not what your government can do for you, but ask why the hell they are not feeling the same economic consequences that are being felt by, we the people.

Moving to the state government, California is a prime example of how expanding government with very expensive workers can bring down the government. In less than ten years, California went from having a ten plus billion dollar surplus to a 42 billion dollar deficit. When California had the surplus, they expanded the size of their workforce and created many long term projects.

• This expansion is the root cause of today's deficit. One of the problems is that California's expansion cannot be reduced when the economy turned bad. They are stuck with all the extra jobs and projects while their revenue because of the bad economy has severely shrunk.

The state is heavily burdened with paying their workers salaries and benefits The private sector at the same time has laid off workers, cut salaries, went bankrupt or just ceased doing business. None of these mechanisms have been used by California. The main reason is union contracts, the kind of contracts that put the GM, Chrysler and Ford on the road to going out of business. Concessions should be made by the unions that will allow California to get back to prosperity. No one wins, when the burden is too heavy to carry and now that burden is breaking the economic back of California.

• Taxes may be necessary but not to cover up the effects of bad government. With unemployment level at such a historic high, it seems that there would be ample replacements for state jobs that have become privatized. Ronald Reagan did it with the FAA controllers during his time in office. These controllers were well trained and experienced government workers and difficult to replace but he did solve the problem. Because of the air traffic safety issue, his decision to replace those controllers that were striking could have had grim results.

• The majority of the California state workers are not as critical as the FAA controllers so why can't it be done at the state level?

It is not right, that public servants have better jobs, benefits, job security and retirements than their masters, "the People". As government workers continue to enjoy these advantages, the "people" continue to lose these advantages and those they still have diminished in value.

I don't understand, why year after year, we keep sending the same kind of politicians to elected offices. These politicians have clearly not been working for our interests and they continue to increase deficits because they know they can tax us to balance their broken budget.

• This is not to say, that there aren't many hardworking and talented people in the government workforce, my criticism is in the high overhead administrators that cause and benefit from poor management of the people's money.

• There are so many useless levels of administration in government and they are the reasons for the deficit. The solution to this burden of administration on the budget is similar to the game Jenga where you have stacks of wood blocks and try to remove all the ones that are not necessary to keep the stack up. In that games it is amazing how many blocks can be taken out without the stack collapsing. The same has to be true of the government structure.

Asking the government to reduce their burden, by reducing their workforce or reducing their benefits is not asking for a unilateral sacrifice. The "people", their "masters" have made tens of millions of these sacrifices already, and they continue to do so. Now it is time for the government to follow suit. If they don't, then it is the responsibility of the "people" to take action by replacing the elected politicians that are not helping the people and the country.

As for Congress

Do away with their Special Retirement system and their health program (they should have same health programs everyone else in America does). When they are through serving their country they go back to being private citizens. They should view their service as a privilege; after all it was designed to be a part time job to represent the voice of the people, NOT the special interest groups and those who can do favors for them.

If they don’t like this proposal then don’t run for office

Related

Popular

Comments

NOYFOB0 of 8192 characters usedPost Comment

  • Robert Sacchi

    2 months ago

    A well written article by John Peterson.

    Status: Shown.
  • AUTHOR

    NOYFOB

    2 months ago

    Robert

    Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque, sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment.

    Here is the creature

    -----------------------

    "Why Public Sector Unions are bad for the US.

    Posted on March 31, 2011 by John Peterson

    The goings-on in the states with public sector unions have me fuming just a bit. These actions reconfirm my support of Right to Work laws like we have here in Virginia. Some of my career has been as a practicing civil engineer with the Soil Conservation Service’s watershed program designing flood control dams. In the engineering profession, from college to membership in professional societies, an engineer is discouraged from being involved with unions. It is considered unprofessional to bargain collectively, as that is something a professional in any field should be able to do on his or her own.

    I do value freedom of association, and I support a person’s right to join or not join a union. I abhor, however, compulsory unionism. That is one reason why I enjoy living here in Virginia and was disappointed when the State Senate turned its thumb down this year on putting our Right to Work law into the state’s Constitution.

    Public sector unions have been a 50-year mistake in the United States. A crucial distinction has been lost in the arguments over the proposals made by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Government unions are not the same as private sector unions in any sense.

    Traditional, private sector unions were born out of an often-bloody adversarial relationship between labor and management. It was said that in World War I, our soldiers had better odds of surviving on the front lines than miners did in the West Virginia coal mines. Mine disasters were frequent and deadly – a Monongahela mine explosion in 1907 claimed the lives of 362 West Virginia miners. Before unionization and many other New Deal-era reforms (FDR opposed the idea of government employee unions), the federal government had little power to reform these poor conditions by legislation. But government unions have no such horror story on their side supporting their reason for existence.

    Government workers were making good salaries in 1962 when President Kennedy lifted the federal ban on government unions. Civil-service regulations and other laws had guaranteed good working conditions for federal employees for generations. I know, as I was one of them, having started with the government in 1953 as a student. The argument for public sector unions was never made on moral, economic or intellectual grounds. It was always political.

    Traditional organized labor, the backbone of one of our two major political parties, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in “The Trouble With Public Sector Unions” in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where government unions were already in place, local liberal politicians benefited both politically and financially, so he took the idea national.

    His plan worked perfectly. Public union membership skyrocketed, and government union support for JFK’s party skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections with 98.5 percent of that money going to the Democrat party according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get – public unions are the nation’s foremost advocates for increased taxes at all levels of government.

    This gets to the real problem with government unions. Wisconsin labor officials note they have already given in to many of their governor’s specific demands, but they do not want to lose their right to collective bargaining – something the Governor is not advocating by the way. But in my opinion, losing the right to collective bargaining is exactly what should happen.

    Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer’s money putting the public interest at odds with union interests, just as we have seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government until we are at the breaking point today. California’s public sector pension costs soared 2000 percent in the last decade thanks to unions.

    Labor-politician negotiations can’t be fair when unions can put so much money into campaign spending. Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the NY City chapter of AFSCME, summed up the problem in 1975 when he boasted, “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.” Don’t you wish we could all do that?

    It’s terribly unwise to have government employees bargaining with their government employer. It creates a dysfunctional system where growing government becomes its own reward. The Cato Institutes Michael Tanner notes that federal education spending has risen by 188 percent in real terms since 1970, but we have seen no significant improvement in test scores. I doubt that the number of student enrolled has risen by 188 percent in that time period, which might justify such an increase. And why is the federal government involved with education in the first place? Isn’t education a state and local responsibility? That is another issue entirely. Look at our nation’s Constitution.

    Many states and cities face the clear potential of bankruptcy today. They must make large cuts in government spending. The states in the worst financial position tend to be those with public employee unions. Curbing union excesses in these state would be a huge start in bringing financial stability back to those taxpayers."

    Status: Visible.
  • Robert Sacchi

    2 months ago

    I think Mary Shelley warned us about this problem. The trouble is she didn't provide an acceptable solution.

    Status: Approved.
  • AUTHOR

    NOYFOB

    16 months ago

    Madan

    In recent times, have the government employees in the US actually administered the nation. Or as we have seen just recently, they, at least the ones at the top have been administering their own policies and agendas.

    Yes, it was lengthy, but I wanted to give all the details on how these perks work, and how different and much better they are then what is available even in the private sector.

    Thanks for your comment.

    Status: Visible.
  • MG Singh

    16 months ago from Singapore

    Government employees are a privileged lot all over the world. One reason is they help to administer the nation. These perks do breed complacency but that is part of the game. Well written but felt it a little too lengthy.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR

      Brad 

      7 weeks ago

      Pop

      While that is true, there is an interesting conundrum for the illegals coming in Oct 2020 when Real ID TSA requirements force the states to change their driver license to conform it.

      Only those seeking asylum will be eligible to apply for their driver licenses, at least in CA. In 2013 CA Governor Jerry Brown and CA congress passed AB 60 to allow illegals to get driver licenses.

      2020 conflicts with that as driver license renewals requirements will not give illegals the license unless they commit fraud to get around it.

      Real ID has been around since 2005 and twice it was supposed to take effect the last one being in 2018, but maybe this time it will actually happen.

      You might want to check out Real Id?

      Have a happy 4th, while we still can celebrate it.

      The left probably wants us to give the US back to England?

    • breakfastpop profile image

      breakfastpop 

      7 weeks ago

      Brad,

      The left's talking points will only appeal to those who are here illegally. Think about it. Free healthcare, and voting rights because asking for ID is racist and healthcare is a right . If all those here illegally vote, the left could actually steal the election. We should stop worrying about the Russians and start worrying about politicians who steal elections by refusing to require voter ID.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile imageAUTHOR

      Brad 

      7 weeks ago

      Pop

      That is a stellar point about the government. And if the constitution gives them immunity from the laws they pass, then we need another amendment. Truly in every sense today, they are above the law.

      But with 2 million government workers getting these very expensive and ultra benefits that are rare in private sector, it is an unnecessary tax burden on the people. Treating them like Royalty is not equal.

      And SCOTUS has turned too political.

      They just decided that a question for the 2020 census cannot ask how many citizens live in the home?

      That only serves to protect the illegals who are costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

      Now to fly on a plane we have to get new driver licenses that verify where a person lives, but that doesn't really help security to know that alone.

      Also, CA gives the same driver license to illegals, and with the new driver licenses they will be able to show them at the polling place. Also, when they issue driver licenses in CA they also sign them up for voting?

      CA doesn't allow polling places to check voter ID?

      The left keeps talking about foreign countries influencing the election, but the real threat is from the illegals in the country, and those that want to vote more than once. Why isn't the protection of our voting process any less important than getting on a plane.

      Even another 911 would pale in comparison to a fraudulent election vote.

      Have a great Sunday, and thanks for stopping by.

    • breakfastpop profile image

      breakfastpop 

      7 weeks ago

      Working for the government has its perks, no doubt about it. The perks that bother me more are those enjoyed by Congress. Those who make the laws should be subjected to them. If that were the case, our laws would be fairer across the board.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)