Do the math. It’s a fairy tale to believe that just increasing taxes on rich people will solve our deficit problems. It’s also a fairy tale to believe that reducing taxes will solve our deficit problems.
Incredible as it sounds though, these are the two big lies American politicians want citizens to believe. One side says that all we have to do is tax the rich, which is anyone making more than $200,000 annually, and we’ll be OK. We don’t have to cut any programs, well maybe defense, but no social programs. Basic arithmetic aside, that’s what the party with the donkeys want us to believe. The other side, the party with the elephant, want us to believe that if we reduce taxes, huge amounts of dollars will flow into government coffers because, in some mysterious way the economy will soar and there will be more tax dollars without increasing tax rates. That’s magical. The elephant guys also want us to slash government spending, but most of then are really vague about which programs should get slashed. They wouldn’t want to piss-off any voters.
There’s a theory that government spending can’t be cut while an economy is in recovery. The theory says that reducing government spending will worsen the situation by increasing unemployment and further reducing tax revenues. Economists argue about this constantly. There is really no proof that adjusting government spending will affect the economy. What there is proof of is that government spending of funds we don’t have will increase the public debt.
There’s also a theory that says taxes can’t be increased during recovery from recession, because that will reduce growth and subsequently further reduce tax receipts. In fact, taxes have been both raised and lowered during economically tough times. There’s no proof that one works better than the other. There is plenty of evidence however that if we don’t raise enough money to meet our debts, it will have a very negative effect on the country’s future.
It’s pretty evident that people in favor of less government control are not going to vote for higher taxes and people in favor of more government subsidies and wealth transfer are not going to vote for reducing spending. Both groups can point to historical situations where implementing their program (or not implementing the opposing program) achieved desirable results. Both sides will put their own spin on not implementing their programs: citizens starving in the dark for example , or conversely, total economic collapse and Armageddon.
Both sides seem to believe that if you talk long enough and loud enough the fairy tales will come true.
SRBAC
See Made in the USA products at Visible Country
Public employee unions, the bargaining problem.
A collective bargaining agreement is a contract between employees and employers. The former referred to as labor and the latter as management. Some of the first of these accords were hammered out between employees and employers in the 1920′s and 1930′s. These are important and hard won agreements, giving labor equality in negotiating with for-profit companies about wages, benefits and working conditions. Collective bargaining was an important step that led to American industrial leadership and prosperity for the rest of the twentieth century.
In private industry there is a clear cut distinction between labor and management. In public employment situations…not so much. For example:
Question: who is the employer?
Answer: Elected government officials – (federal, state and local), and indirectly, the people who voted for the elected government officials and of course the bureaucracy (composed of public union members) that manages the vast government landscape.
Question: Who is the employee?
FDR
Answer: Elected government officials – (federal, state or local), and the bureaucracy (composed of public union members) that administers the the various governments agencies.
Question: Who negotiates terms of the collective bargaining agreement?
Answer: The public union members who also vote to elect the government officials negotiate with the elected government officials or administrative representatives of the government officials.
So what we have here is public sector employees bargaining for wages, benefits and working conditions with…wait, wait for it…other public sector employees! Yes! What a deal!
Okay, last question: who said the following (don’t worry it’s a multiple choice question):
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”
a. Donald Duck
b. Genghis Khan
c. Scott Walker
d. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Okay times up. Pencils down. If you don’t know who said that, look it up.
Visit Visible Country for American Products