It’s unfortunate that what we see happening in Wisconsin may well be the beginning of a national movement. The fight in Wisconsin is similar to fights that will be taking place in state legislatures across the land. On the surface it is about balancing the current budgets, but the reality is it’s about the power of public employee labor unions to cripple local governments. Republican elected officials are talking about the impossible task of funding employee benefits and pension plans for the long term that must be paid with current general fund dollars. Today we are finding that we made promises previously we can’t keep. And there’s the rub!
The current recession and economic crisis in our country is exposing the weakness of a system very much a Ponzi Scheme. We pay yesterday’s promises with today’s dollars knowing that eventually the payouts will be greater than the income and the system will collapse.
The Democrats want to talk about the cost as a percentage of unknown growth in the economy. If you can be sure that there will be inflated revenue streams down the road then they believe it’s worth the risk.
So what strategy should we employ when every budget scenario we try produces the same general result?
Elected Officials today can’t make promises to employees that create unfunded liabilities to successors down the road. And that is the solution if there is one. If benefit and pension obligations for the future are set aside today from current revenues then there is a better chance that money will actually be available when retiring employees are ready.
The down side is that there is no money left for programs and projects that benefit the public today. The money is all tied up in employee overhead.
Elected officials in every jurisdiction in our country should be huddling with their managers and finance people to assess their long term commitments and their ability to fund them. Every time a labor contract comes up for negotiation unfunded obligations have to be considered.
If voters and taxpayers express their willingness to have their taxes raised year after year by electing council members, commissioners and legislators who solve the problem by tapping taxpayers then there should be no complaints. If my councilmember comes out in a hearing and tells the public that we need to raise taxes because we agreed to benefits and pensions we can’t afford I might think about who I elect. So those elected officials are more likely to tell you they need to raise taxes for books, fire trucks or pothole repair.
In Wisconsin the Democratic Senators fled from the capitol to prevent a vote on an issue they are sure to lose. They are saying that they won’t return unless the Governor agrees to talk about it and be prepared to compromise. They are outraged that the Republicans are taking advantage of the power they won in the last election.
Do we need to be reminded of that day not too long ago when President Obama turned to Senator John McCain and said quite pointedly “There are consequences of elections. We won!”
Who could argue that there weren’t consequences of the 2008 elections any more than anyone could argue that after the 2010 elections there might also be consequences?
I don’t remember too much compromising in either house of the Congress when the Health Care Reform Act was approved without any hearings. I don’t even remember too much outcry from the media when Speaker Pelosi stood there and told us that we needed to approve it before we found out what was in it.
I am sure that teachers, firefighters, police and other state workers in Wisconsin are fine people just like they are here in Washington, but I also know that the leverage they have from their collective bargaining agreements puts the taxpayers in that state and every other state in peril not commensurate with the private sector.
Voters sent a strong message in the last election cycle. They said they wanted to reverse the course set by Democrats to increase the size and power of government to take our dwindling resources to pay for commitments out of line with trends in the private sector.
Voters were clear that if what President Obama delivered after promising a change for the better, they wanted no part of it.
Republicans were elected to return our government to a path of long term fiscal solvency. It is our jobs as citizens to be as vigilant in holding their feet to the fire as we were in campaigning for their election.
No Loss for Words 
Who are the Job Creators?
by Steve DanaThe President was on the West coast a week or so ago to huddle with a group of business executives primarily representing the tech sector; folks like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to talk about creating jobs. After that gathering he came north to Portland Oregon to the unveiling of a new product line at Intel.
When Presidents go anywhere, they are almost always expected to have public remarks and the trip to Intel was no different. I really wasn’t listening to the substance of Obama’s remarks because he always talks about job creation but he never delivers.
The reason for him being there was applicable because Intel is a great example of a private sector job creator. The competition in the micro-chip industry keeps the players working their tails off to create products that are in demand in the market place. This is a company that understands competition. When the existing products become stale or the competition begins to close the gap on market share there is a huge push for next generation products that raise the bar for everyone else in that industry.
So what is it that the President doesn’t understand about the difference between a government subsidy to a company to produce a product that has no demand in the market place and a company like Intel?
The whole tech sector is a product of market driven innovation offering the guy with the best product a chance to get filthy rich. That is the American Dream.
The idea that by putting subsidy dollars into environmentally friendly products that nobody wants and would never pay for if their price were established by a competitive market we can create sustainable jobs is a joke.
The alternative plan for the government is to drive up the cost of producing those in-demand products so the price differential between the good stuff and the government preferred stuff favors the government preferred stuff, consumers will buy the government preferred stuff.
The government needs to get out of the business of anointing winners in a free market. The market will do that all by itself.
Anyone who has been in business can attest that the process of bringing a product to market is a process of trial and error or listening carefully to your customers and tailoring your product to their demands.
What the President and his economic development team is doing is similar to the old Soviet Union when the government would decide what was appropriate and only make those products. Quality sucked and competition was “discouraged” through harassment. Does that sound familiar?
Given a level playing field, American businesses are more than capable of creating all the jobs we need. The biggest obstacles to job creation are government regulation and a legal system that rewards frivolous lawsuits.
We are not building electric power generating plants of any kind in this country because government regulations and environmentally related lawsuits either discourage them or prevent them outright. Construction jobs building them would be good. Operator jobs when they are completed would be better.
If the only consideration was the jobs created, fast tracking permitting and dismissing frivolous lawsuits would be worth the effort. Then if you factor in the supply of energy we need to meet the demands of the market we get to be double winners. So why wouldn’t the government work to clear these hurdles?
I wish President Obama was the only president that failed to clear hurdles but he isn’t. The effort to create jobs will require the coordinated efforts of both the executive branch and the legislative branch over a sustained period of time.
The government will never be a job creator, but it is a great job killer.
Posted in Federal Government, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »