PA budget

[Spexxvet]

The Republican governor called for public school administrators, teachers and support staff to “hold the line” and share in the economic sacrifice by agreeing to a one-year pay freeze, which he said could save school districts $400 million. Salary bumps for teachers with master’s degrees would be eliminated, saving school districts about $200 million.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...get_would.html
Teachers, students and their families need to "share in the economic sacrifice" but wealthy people, who should be taxed more, don't have to. Bullshit.

he also will be seeking salary rollbacks, pay freezes and increased benefit contributions from state employees as contracts expire. He wants to eliminate 1,500 state jobs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,162176.story

PA unemployment is still over 8%, but let's fuck over 1500 more middle class families by eliminating their jobs.

Republicans suck, and not in the good way.

[SamIam]

Times are tough all over. Colorado has around 8.8% unemployment and the state legislature has been slashing programs left and right (no pun intended). It's a vicious cycle. The economic downturn means that there is less funding for things like food stamps and medical assistance for low income families, etc., etc. This, at the same time that the rise in unemployment has created a greater demand for these services.

Colorado State University has created an eye-opening program called the "Back Seat Budgeter." You can can click on this site and play around raising or lowering different taxes, eliminating programs or restoring their funding, etc. http://www.backseatbudgeter.com/Budg...ult.aspx?tid=1

It's kind of a cool way to mess around with the over all well being of the state. I started out by punching in the numbers for what I consider to be a mildly liberal agenda - restoring heath care funding to previous levels, no cuts to education, etc. I tried paying for this spending by raising taxes by about 2%, hoping my hypothetical Colorado tax payers wouldn't revolt and try to impeach me or something. I ended up $20 mill in the red.

So then I tried getting mean about it. I just kept all education, health care, etc at their 2010 funding - no cuts, no increases. And, ignoring Merc's and UG's screams of "Communist!," I raised Colorado income taxes by 5%, increased taxes on liquor and tobacco by a $1.00/bottle and .50/pack respectively. I increased the state sales tax by 5% and clobbered corporations with a 10% tax increase.

Even after all that, I was still $7 mill in the red and had thrown away the Colorado State constitution.

In the current economic climate there seem to be few viable options for liberals or conservatives.

[tw]

Originally Posted by SamIam

In the current economic climate there seem to be few viable options for liberals or conservatives.

Numerous reporters, including Joe Klein of Time Magazine, note the curious. With Democrats and Republicans, workers and management, taxpayers and government, moderates and extremists, etc all in confrontation. How curious. Even the millionaire may be on strike against the billionaires. People who created this mess - ie Wall Street, financial organizations, financial instrument creators, corporate spin doctors and their finance departments, etc - are running scot free, unchallenged, and with record incomes. The number of people actually prosecuted is almost zero (even Enron executives almost went free).

I have said this often when we were creating these economic problems back in early 2000s. Money games mean economics takes revenge many years later. I believe I may have put dates to it such as 2010 and 2012.

Welcome to what happens when we let the richest and least productive segments of society create economic miracles using (Kennedy) tax cuts, putting social security into stock markets, liberate financial markets, subvert all regulation (especially the SEC), permit secret contracts rather than trade them on public markets, use war to make a stronger economy, welfare to this nations most unproductive industries (ie $25billion annually to ethanol), obstruct Basel xx, shorting pension funds while blaming the unions, solve problems by creating jobs with finance spin games, and claim US financial markets were smarter than the rest of the world.

Welcome to how almost everyone pays when we ignore what was obvious ten years ago. And notice how the few people most responsible for this mess are only spectators. Have seen their incomes increase easily 100% when the average American income dropped 2%. So who is, for example, government going after? Only the richests are not even seeing their tax rates go back to normal. People most responsible for this mess are the least under stress.

When it comes to economics, there is no justice. Economics takes revenge if a nation does not heavily regulate finance people. And hold their feet to the fire when spread sheets four plus years later report what they really did. Instead, the people must punished are common people who let the finance industry ply them with lies. Ie balloon mortgages. Ie borrowing money to buy a car. Ie credit cards with an outstanding balance. Ie tax cuts to the rich that create no jobs.

Or maybe there is justice? The people most harmed by this recession are the ones who all but wanted it by remaining silent. For example, knowing Saddam had WMDs, corporate welfare to drug companies to keep drug prices 40% higher. K Street where almost nobody got prosecuted. By not demanding heads in the White House and Congress. In fact many now hurt foolishly praised the people who were most harmed them. An overwhelming reaction I saw in the Cellar approved of what now we must pay for. Welcome to how economics takes revenge. And maybe the real criminals - the common man who voted for these people - is being properly punished.

[Undertoad]

A layoff of 1500 jobs will increase the unemployment figure by 0.01%.

Everybody else got laid off, let the state workers go.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Everybody else got laid off, let the state workers go.

One does wonder why they would be "different" from "normal" people. Or why their organizations wouldn't operate by the laws of economic common sense: when times are lean, you have to make cuts. No exceptions.

You know what kind of businesses don't follow the rules? Ones that fail. Only the government magically can continue to go into more and more massive debt. The reason is that a new boss will get hired on a periodic basis, so there is no accountability.

Unless the people actually wanted accountability.

Yet somehow we have people arguing FOR bad decisions.

I cannot comprehend the logic.

[Flint]

wealthy people, who should be taxed more

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Everybody else got laid off, let the state workers go.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices?

Let's use the family analogy that repubicans are so fond of these days. Your family has four members in it. Do you each pay the same amount for your food, clothing, utilities, etc.? No. You pay much more than your children do. Why? because you make much more than they do. Are you being punished for your hard work?

Wealth people "should" pay more taxes because they've benefitted from government services, which have allowed them to attain wealth, because a strong middle class will make a strong America, and because everybody needs to feel some pain, not just those whose jobs are being eliminated and those whose services are being cut.

Originally Posted by Flint

If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

You'd have a system that gives incentive to reinvest capital. Workers would be paid more, businesses would become more efficient, prices would be kept lower, products and services would be better. Think the 1950s.

[Spexxvet]

Current repubican policy reminds me of the christian church in the middle ages. Keep the commoners ignorant, hungry, poor, and scrared, and take care of the Titled, who will protect the church's interests.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But one reality makes a reality.

Kids think they should get every toy in the store. Parents have to tell them, "Money doesn't grow on trees." Be a parent, not a kid. If kids ran the world, we would be doomed. Parents are here for a reason. Don't be a kid. It makes it harder on us parents to keep society intact.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Let's use the family analogy that repubicans are so fond of these days. Your family has four members in it. Do you each pay the same amount for your food, clothing, utilities, etc.? No. You pay much more than your children do. Why? because you make much more than they do. Are you being punished for your hard work?

I chose to have children, they are my responsibility. And, I am teaching them to grow up and be self sufficient. The money that I earn in order to support my family is not being coerced from me when I support my own children (as it is when the government takes over the redistribution of MY earnings). This isn't an anlogy, this is a reality. I live this.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Flint

redistribution of MY earnings

It's not "redistribution of my earnings". It's investing in our national community. For example: nobody wants to be driving behind a care in disrepair and run over something that falls off it, or have another care in disrepair collide with you because it's brakes don't work. So we have standards for cars, and a department of transportation or motor vehicles to manage that. And we don't want to wait in long lines when we get our cars inspected.

When you reduce government/taxes, something gives, whether it be your children's education, police or firefighter coverage, or the safety of the car in front of you or behind you.

How do you make a second-rate nation out of a first-rate nation? Reduce government spending. Name a country that has gone through an austerity program and come out better for it.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

So you're in favor of the obscene amounts paid to executives in the Banking Loan Industry and Wall Street Investment Firms? And these people actually got their taxes cut, BTW. Nor did they "make smart decisions" whether to provide for their families or in the best interests of the nation. Bah! Let them eat cake.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

The following stats come from a frankly liberal web site edited by Steve Kangas.

However, Kangas cites a wide variety of sources for his research - from the extreme right wing (Christopher Jencks, a controversial researcher in the ‘70’s), to middle of the road, slightly right leaning Business Week to the liberal Claude Fischer’s book, Inequality by Design..

One major factor in determining who becomes successful is inheritance. In 1989, one third of all Americans who earned more than $1 million began with an inherited fortune. (3) But even more widespread is the practice of "living inheritances" -- the advantages passed on from parents to their children while still alive. Examples include wealthy families sending their kids off to college, providing venture capital for their start-up businesses, and otherwise granting them every advantage in a competitive world.

The social aspect of wealth accumulation can be seen in the following statistic: between 1975 and 1992, the amount of national household wealth owned by the richest 1 percent rose from 22 to 42 percent. Does this mean the richest 1 percent suddenly became twice as smart or productive? Does this mean that someone in the top 1 percent is 71 times smarter or more personally productive than anyone in the bottom 99 percent? Of course not. Social factors must be responsible for such tremendous differences, even if these are simply the dynamics of the market. What this means is that conservative talk of "merit" is misguided, and not a little ironic.

The following table is from Business Week – not exactly a hotbed of left wing thought.

CEO pay and other trends (original figures have been converted into constant 96 dollars)

1990 1995 Percent Change

Average CEO Pay 2.34 million 3.86 million +65%

Average Worker Pay $27,615 $27,418 -0.6%

Coorporate Profits 212 billion 317 billion +50%

Worker Layoffs 316,047 439,882 +39%



Note that company profits went up by 50% but the compensation of CEO’s rose a full 15% higher than that – to 65%. I think EVERY worker’s pay should be tied to the company’s profits. Even if only CEO’s reap the benefit of increased profits via increased pay, why they should they have gotten and additional 15% increase. Flint can sing the blues for these CEO’s all he wants, but, personally, I won’t be sending them CARE packages any time soon.

Also from Business Week:

Greater inequality has become a clear disincentive to workers, who are working harder, producing more, yet seeing stagnating wages and greater prospects of being laid off. The following sentiment, from a United Technologies middle manager who has seen his company downsize by some 30,000 employees in the past six years, is typical: "I used to go to work enthusiastically. Now, I just go in to do what I have to do. I feel overloaded to the point of burnout. Most of my colleagues are actively looking for other jobs or are just resigned to do the minimum."

I don’t care how much “merit” the guy at the top has. If the managers who work for him are incompetent or lacking in some way, the corporation is not going to do nearly as well. Middle managers work their tails off – the good ones do, anyhow. And their reward is income stagnation or worse yet, they get laid off.

Flint may call it “merit.” I call it greed.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

[Flint]

Always referring to "rich" people in a dehumanizing manner doesn't lend any further ethical weight to the concept of taking from them the sweat of their own brow. Compile your list of "they are evil and don't deserve their money because" A, B, and C reasons, but at the end of the day the fact remains that money is hard to earn. Money represents hard work. On a purely ethical basis, it isn't right to take from a man the fruit of his own labor. What you're doing is concocting an elaborate, narrative construct to convolutedly justify something which is plainly wrong.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Flint

Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?

Money is hard to earn for you and me - well, me anyhow. It's a lot easier to earn if you start from a base of a $million plus the way at least 1/3 of all CEO's have started. And how is getting a 65% raise "punishment," especially when your company shows "only" a 50% increase in profits?

If you set up the system: "'the harder you work, the less you can keep' what would happen?" If you'd read my post, you'd see I answered that. Middle managers, demoralized by stagnant earnings and increasing layoffs, no longer give the job their best effort. This is both bad for them and bad for the company. Or are you so wealthy, you don't give a damn about the middle class?