Please read the comments. I’ve added a couple of updated thoughts to the end of the post related to them and reading them will help put them in context.
Divemedic has a thought provoking post over at his place titled I guess it is my fault for expecting you to honor your promise . I agree with his sentiments and can tell you that the issue is more complex than either side has presented. I know that I risk alienating some of my readers and friends with my comments, but the truth is that this so called debate is very one sided. As someone pointed out in a forum far away, a lot of the public employees that some in the media are vilifying are your neighbors, your friends, and in some cases the people you depend on when your life falls apart.
For some reason the meme has taken hold that the entirety of the current financial problems that the federal, state, and local governments are facing is related to the “overly generous pay, benefits, and pensions” of public employees. That’s patently false as Divemedic points out,
Of course, in making the public employees and their pensions into the scapegoat, they distract taxpayers from the real issues:
In 2010 (pdf alert), public pensions in Florida were $743 million, or 1% of the budget. Medicaid costs $20.5 billion, or 29% of the budget. Education is 52% of the budget. Free lunches for poor school kids? $800 million. The new arena that was built in Orlando for the basketball team? $480 million. With all of that, why are public pensions being blamed for breaking the budget?
Please read his entire post, because it gives a good context for my comments.
So, why is it that public employee salaries, benefits, and pensions have suddenly become “entitlements” instead of what they really are, which is salaries, benefits, and pensions?
Low hanging fruit. It’s much easier to vilify public employees and use class envy (remember that’s supposed to be a liberal tactic) to scapegoat public employees than it is to take on the difficult and politically dangerous task of sorting through the myriad of programs that give people things that are paid for with the public’s tax dollars. We’ve had about 50 years of the entitlement society and we can clearly see that all that it has accomplished is to breed three generations of free loaders. Yes, indeed there are people who can’t pay for their basic needs. As a civilized society we are obligated to care for those who can’t care for themselves. The problem is that we are now caring for those who won’t care for themselves. I, and any police officer, EMS worker, or firefighter has seen them, usually many times. We pay young girls to have babies and then we wonder why they have babies. We pay for people not to work and then we wonder why they won’t work. We give people free medical care and then wonder why they abuse EMS and Emergency Departments. We admit people to this country and then advocates for immigrants teach them how to maximize their benefits and we wonder why we have uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration. Other nations, including our neighbor to the south, don’t allow immigrants inside their borders without verification that they won’t become a burden on society. We, on the other hand, invite people with no salable skills into the country and then subsidize them.
During the mid 1990s when President Clinton initiated a process to reform welfare in this country Rev. Jessie Jackson said that the problems did not merit abolishing the system, “Mend it, don’t end it” in Jackson speak. The problem is that despite the reforms, we haven’t mended it, we’ve made it worse. Fixing the various “welfare” programs, including Medicare would go a long way to solving the financial problems we are facing.
Then there is the plethora of federal and to a lesser extent state agencies that do, uh, what? Do we need a Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation? Is it really the federal governments responsibility to oversee these functions at the state and local level? How much of our federal tax money goes to agencies who mission seems only to be expand their budget, staff, and mission?
Then there are the public schools. It’s become fashionable to lay the blame for our failing public schools on the teachers and the teachers unions. While the large national teachers organizations certainly bear some of the blame, I can tell you that many of the teachers I know (and I have a lot of friends and family that are teachers) don’t agree with the agendas of the National Education Association and other national education lobbyists. I can also tell you that if given the choice they wouldn’t contribute to them, but they don’t have a choice. Classroom teachers bear the brunt of the laws, rules, and regulations that trickle down to them from the federal and state governments. It’s not enough to know the material you are teaching and be able to present it. Teachers also have to be disciplinarians, social workers, referees, and sometimes cops. More than once Mrs. TOTWTYTR has had to call the police to her classroom to escort a yout out. One of her co workers retired from injuries sustained while trying to stop two students from fighting. Seems that the 300 pound “child” that was beating on the other student decided that throwing the 90 pound 5’0″ teacher to the floor and then jumping on her was the appropriate response to the teacher telling her to stop.
Imagine your little Johnny or Jane on their worst day. Now imagine 30 or more of them in a room together. That’s what public school teachers face on a daily basis. Don’t even think about expelling the worst offenders because in the public schools that’s almost impossible. Oh, and in the public schools “children” can stay until they are 22. In some urban systems it’s not unusual to have students who have served time in state prison and upon release have been readmitted to high school. Or Middle School for that matter. Imagine the complexities of having 18-22 year old men in the same school with 13-16 year old girls. Try to sort that out, if you can. While you’re at it, don’t depend on the administration to back up the teachers, because they are mostly cowards who will take the path of least resistance.
Don’t forget that for each hour of classroom teaching there are about three hours of preparation for which the teachers are not paid.
So, where is the first place that cuts come in the public schools? Teachers of course, because we know that they are lazy. Never administrators because they are the ones that get those lazy teachers to work. Just ask them. Well, if you can find them and they aren’t at a seminar, conference, or other meeting. Look at the long list of education entitlements imposed (without financial support) by the federal government on the school systems. It’s an ironclad rule of government that once an “entitlement” program is in place it never stays the same size, let alone shrinks. Those programs always, always, expand as the list of people that fall under the programs grows.
Can some public agencies be cut? Probably, but we don’t know which ones because no one has taken a serious look at which agency does what and how much value a particular agency delivers to the public. Not to mention examining which agencies and programs are redundant. What we have had is hyperbole from both sides of the debate. Some Republicans and libertarians lay the entire blame (if that’s the right word) on public employees and their unions. The Democrats and their liberal supporters (which includes the leadership of some big unions) tell us that the only solution is tax hikes. With the economy continuing to suck, gas and food prices continuing to rise, and salaries stagnant or in some cases decreasing, most voters have no stomach for more taxes. That includes most public employees in case you didn’t know it. Everyone I work with pays the same taxes that you do. Some of them, because they have to live within the city pay those taxes and then several thousand more so that their children can go to private schools. We feel the same financial pain that people in the private sector do.
If we, as a nation, are serious about fixing the financial mess then we, as a nation have to look at the entire picture and not fall for simplistic solutions that scapegoat public employees. In the long run we will suffer from the quick and easy fix. Let’s say we decide to cut public employee’s pay, benefits, and retirement. Do you really think that those people are going to want to stay in those jobs or will apply for openings? Do you really think that the people we do end up hiring will be all that good? When I read about my “bloated benefits” I can’t help but think of the holidays I came in to work while all of my friends were off, the nights I came in to work in horrid weather, the places I responded to where no sane person would go, and the jobs in the private sector I passed up because I wanted to do what I do. Of course no one who derides public safety employees thinks about that. Well, they do when they say, “I couldn’t do what you do.” Which statement they forget when budget time comes around. Then it’s “We’ll find people to do that for less.” I’d laugh if it wasn’t so pathetically dumb.
So, here is Doctor TOTWTYTR’s prescription for restoring fiscal health the finances of our nation.
1) Look at every department, agency, and program of the federal government. Cut the ones that have not proven that they deliver whatever it is they promised when the law creating them was passed. Do the same thing at the state level.
2) Define “entitlement” programs and review everyone of them with an eye to ending them over the next five years. Some are necessary, but I’ll bet that none of them have to be as expansive as they are now. The public will be amazed to discover what public safety employees all know. There is a lot of fraud going on in those programs and we are paying for that and for the people who instruct beneficiaries in how to legally steal from the system.
3) Turn the public school systems of this country back into educational institutions and stop using them as sociological programs to fix every problem that every child has. Make the managers of the school systems responsible for the schools performance. Oh, and get rid of “standardized tests”. School administrators love them because it’s easy to “teach to the test” and “prove” that your school system is wonderful. It’s much harder to actually educate kids. While we’re at it, make it easier to kick disruptive kids out and harder for them to cloak themselves with the “special education” label.
4) Reform immigration. I think you’ll find that among other things Americans will do those jobs that “Americans won’t do”. It used to be called entry level employment. Don’t allow other countries to dump their problem populations on us, we have enough of our own.
5) Pass laws that make large national unions separate their lobbying activities from their member representation activities. Make their budgets and financial records public. I think we’ll all be surprised at what comes to light. Give employees the option of truly opting out of paying for lobbying and political activities with which they don’t agree.
6) Give public employees the option not to contribute to public retirement systems. Some people are better off not contributing because they don’t intend to spend their entire career in the public sector. Giving them this option will allow them to put money aside for their retirement, but not tie them to jobs that they might end up not wanting to stay in.
7) Change the rules regarding teaching certifications. There are a lot of people that would like to teach for a few years, maybe after they retire, maybe until they find out what they really want to do. Currently, the laws in many states make teacher certification and exercise in umping through hoops, not making making sure that they know the subject that they intend to teach. Oh, and while we’re at it, does having a Masters Degree in Education or a related subject make one a better teacher? Some states now require that to be hired as a teacher.
Not that I expect any of this to happen because it would require a lot of work and maybe some unpopular decisions by cowardly politicians from both parties. It’s much easier to demonize a small segment of the population.
Other than that, I don’t have any strong opinions on the subject.
Updates Additional points
8 ) One of the things that seems to upset a lot of people is that in some states public employees do not contribute to their pension systems or insurance premiums. Wisconsin and Florida are apparently among them. Since I do both, I didn’t realize until recently that in some states they didn’t. I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect that public employees do both. How much is certainly open to discussion, but zero wouldn’t seem to be part of the answer.
9) If you really want to reduce political influence by unions or any other lobbyists, the solution is term limits. I was once against them because I thought that it should be up to the voters to impose term limits by voting out politicians they don’t like. A couple of recent forays on the fringes of other peoples’ political campaign introduced me to some of the slimey tricks that career politicians play to keep their phony baloney jobs. As a result my position has changed and I am now in favor of term limits. In fact, I think that term limits on union officers would be a good idea, but that should be up to the members, not the government.
Doing either or both would help to ensure that politicians didn’t give away public money to help them get re-elected. At least they’d have to find other ways to do it.
Amen.
Good post! Two comments- One, part of the ‘issue’ is that many public employee pensions required NO contribution from the employee… In most private companies, you must contribute to get matching funds. Secondly, the LAST place most of the cuts will happen are in admin/support staffs, as those people will defend to the death their jobs, and are always in front of the ‘management’ unlike fire/police/EMS personnel (who are all out in the field)….
Two good points. I forgot to mention the contribution issue, which was kind of dumb of me because it’s central to what’s going on. In my state all public employees have to contribute to both their pensions and their health care. I don’t know if that includes politicians or their staffs, but that’s a different issue. What percentage our check goes to the pension fund depends on when we started. I’m at roughly 8%, I think new employees are at 12%. I pay 20% of my health care premium, which puts me int the same neighborhood that PJ is in. One thing we do have is some choice of what plan we want, but not to the extent we did 10 years ago. The state has already taken those choices away from state employees and they have to use the state designated plan, which has fewer benefits and higher deductibles than do the private companies, all of which are non profit.
As to the second point, sadly you are right. Two of three teachers in Mrs. TOTWTYTR’s department were laid off and the department was consolidated with a larger, not at all related department. The budget for her former department was cut to $0.0, which means no practical portion to the curriculum, just reading about it. Despite that, the department head was not cut, she was in fact given a raise. Nor was any other administrator or office staff cut, just teachers. But, it’s always that way, isn’t it.
TOTW, yours is the exception, rather than the ‘rule’ these days for public employee unions. And yeah, the second part is all too true…
Old NFO has a good point…part of what frosts the general public is the lack of contributions required of many public sector employees. “Free” health insurance sounds pretty good to me (I pay about $300 a month out of my paycheck; my employer subsidizes the rest) and it sounds fantastic to those who don’t get it at all. Same with defined benefit pensions…most of private industry has gone away from those, but public employees still get them. But the tin-eared public employee unions in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) refuse to consider increasing the employee contribution *at all*. They’d still be well under my contribution described above, but nothing above “zero” seems acceptable. That’s a hard pill to swallow for folks who haven’t gotten raises (if they’ve even kept their jobs) and have had their cost of benefits increase.
Obviously, the solution is not to yank the proverbial carpet out from under those have retired or are within ‘x’ years of doing so…there should be a graduated phase-out of the defined benefit pension, based on years of service. Similarly, those still employed should be willing to contribute a higher (or some) percentage to their current benefits package. Truth is, I imagine that many public employees WOULD be willing to do so if the unions didn’t scream so loudly and whip them into a frenzy.
The “skin in the game” issue is a troubling one for all public benefit (welfare) programs. Shouldn’t Medicaid recipients have to contribute *something* to their healthcare costs? Even a nominal co-pay ($10 for an office visit is what I pay in-network, others pay more) seems entirely fair. Shouldn’t welfare recipients have to contribute some kind of community service?
Ultimately, the politicians listen to those who make the most noise. Most of us only start screaming when OUR benefits are getting cut. The rest of the time we hear about this program or that program and think “ah, that’s not so much money.” Problem is, all of those little 1- and 2-percent programs start to add up. The system as it exists is unsustainable. But people want to fight about every little thing instead of banding together to say yes, we’re going to have to make some cuts, and yes, some people are going to suffer for it. Until we do that, nothing will change, and we’ll just continue on this road to nowhere.
As noted above, I pay part of my health insurance premium and the percentage I pay has increased quite a bit over the past five or so years. I also, like you, have deductibles for office visits, prescriptions, and emergency department visits. Of the three, generally the ED visits have the highest deductible, although some name brand prescription drugs have fairly high deductibles as well.
I think that if you were to talk to some of the rank and file members you would find that their opinions are much different than the leadership. I always laugh when a union, say a police union, endorses a liberal politician. Most cops I know, and I know quite a few, are pretty conservative. A lot of EMS workers are as well, although not to the extent of police. I know that a lot of members of unions vote opposite of the way their leadership wants them to. I’m going to do a quick update to the original post to address the issues that you and OldNFO brought up.
This is by way of a yes, but. There’s and apples and oranges problem in what you’re writing:
There are several levels of problem here. Medicaid. is not a local obligation so unless you’re limiting the discussion to state budget problems let’s set that aside for a minute. A lot of cities and counties have huge unfunded liabilities of their own. Just take the California city I work in. Population around 100,000, unfunded employee benefits liabilities well over $300 million. Probably higher than they’re admitting to, but $3000 per man woman and child is bad enough.
What happened? The California Public Employee Retirement System (Calpers) assumed annual investment returns of 7.75%. In the fiscal year ending June 30 2009 the city’s returns were around negative 25%. Now CALPERS is a unifying factor since it covers state AND local employees, we’re still talking local budget streams at the moment. And it can get worse: The City of Vallejo, CA went into chapter 9. Here’s from a news story:
“Vallejo spends 74 percent of its $80 million general fund budget on public safety salaries, significantly higher than the state average. The generous contracts are the result of deals struck in the 1970s, following a police strike that left the city in turmoil.” http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-05-07/bay-area/17156524_1_public-safety-city-s-financial-mess-generous-contracts
I admit that if I had been in one of those jobs I’d have taken the money. But what now? In many cases no matter what was promised there is no more money.
I agree that there are several layers of problems exist here. They all need to be fixed and public safety employees in particular should not be scapegoated as the soul cause of the problem. PJ points out some of the solutions and I think that my “prescription” points out some more. None of that is a complete solution.
I also don’t think that picking out one city or town, or even a few, is particular illustrative of the problem. It’s what I call “making the rule by the exceptions” wherein the outliers are treated as the norm. It’s hard to compare poilce and fire firefighters to their private counterparts because there are no true private counterparts to the police and there are very few for the fire service. Comparing private EMS to public EMS is difficult because very often much of what I do is almost entirely different from what someone in private EMS that does not respond to emergencies does. Just because our vehicles might look the same, the patches are the same, that does not mean that a paramedic that does routine transfers day in and day out does the same thing that I do. That’s a very complex issue and probably deserves it’s own post, but it’s not directly related to this topic other than in comparison to pay and benefits. That they are better for most public EMS workers pays dividends in terms of experience and expertise. Consider that the average career span for a private EMT or paramedic is about six years. (Although I don’t think it’s well studied). That’s because pay and benefits are generally pretty bad, as are working conditions. Many private companies depend on constant “churn” of their employees so that they can avoid paying top pay. As a result they lose many talented people who go to municipal services. Which means that your odds of getting a really experienced provider with a private company are not as good as with a public agency. Again, that’s a generalization, but I think it applies to most private companies. And yes, there are exceptions in both directions. Still on average your odds of being treated by an experienced provider who is not exhausted from working three EMS jobs are greater with a public EMS provider.
When the financial mess permeates the entire state’s public employee retirement system — it’s not just police and fire, it’s just about everyone (except IIRC teachers) — and Vallejo’s problems are particularly dire, the other city, unfortunately isn’t an outlier. It’s actually reasonably well managed, it’s just that its unfunded pension obligations — all employees, not just public safety — are about the size of its whole annual budget and there’s no way the city can dig itself out by any plausible economic growth. The thing is, it’s not just the public safety personnel who are justified in saying “I guess it’s my fault for expecting you to honor your promise.” It may be particularly egregious for in the case of those who risk their lives, but for many cities and counties — as it is for the whole country with Social Security and Medicare, about which you could also say what Divemedic says — the money just isn’t there.
Chris Christie may be showboating but he’s also right: The promises were made, but what are you going to ask people who are hanging on by their fingernails — which by and large isn’t the public employment sector — to give up to honor some of the promises that were made?
The main point is that government entities are spending more money than they have. Where’s is gone? I’m betting that the waste and corruption would make you want to puke – if you could find an honest pogue to tell the truth. When you add six figure salaries for second tier administrators in small communities, the truth starts to become apparant: the foxes are guarding the henhouse.
I’m in the private sector, and construction at that. Every day I go to work, I’m working my way out of a job. From my perspective, the percentage of people that are “public” employees is alarming. More alarming is the mountains of garbage, known as paperwork, that a substantial amount of these workers shovel around for the whims of bureaucrats that have no purpose but to push paper. Services that benefit because of the necessity are booted around as political footballs, while the ability to talk to a bureaucrat is forbidden by voice-mail and other political firewalls that prevent accountability. The problem is obvious: We’re paying people to screw us around, but allow them to sit in isolation to accomplish their deeds.
It’s obvious that there will be no accountability by any government official. The only solution is to remove the funds. All the posturing only prolongs that agony. In the end, the money is either withheld by choice, or force. Time will tell how it’s accomplished.
You’re right in part, but again, the solution is to fix the problems, not to scapegoat people, especially in public safety, who provide a service under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
There are a couple of things that make the issue more complex. First is on the subject of retirement contributions. That happened a few years ago when public employees agreed to forgo raises for a year in exchange for not having to contribute to the pension fund.
The second is health insurance. The city that I work for pays for the employee’s insurance, and if the employee wants to insure dependents, they must pay for that. This is similar to what other (private sector) employers in the area are offering as a benefit.
One thing that is overlooked by people who claim that we in emergency services should be “just like everyone else” is that I do not get overtime at 40 hours “just like everyone else” and this means that I work an average of 64 hours a week. I do not get shift differentials, holidays off, or meal breaks, “just like everyone else.” Does anyone have any idea how many children’s birthdays, meals, family Christmases, and anniversaries I have had to miss?
I have been injured in the line of duty. Twice. Each time, I was out of work for months. I have been punched, kicked, had a knife pulled on me, and laid on top of a child in the bathtub of a burning apartment to shield him from flames with my body, until other rescuers could get there.
This current fight, with people telling me what a parasite I am, has me giving serious thought into finding a new career. If this law, stripping me of half my pension passes, I may go ahead and retire before it takes effect to save half my pension.
Your points are valid, but I’m not sure that shortsighted people will care. A friend of mine who is eligible to retire recently got promoted to upper management. He plans to stay for several more years but told me that if there is a move to reform (reduce) pensions, he’ll leave before it takes effect. Last year when the reformed (reduced) police pensions, a lot of talented officers who could have stayed retired instead. They’ll take their talent to the private sector, where the city will still end up paying for it.
Don’t feel bad, I work an average of 54 hour weeks, only get paid for 40 hours, regardless of shift worked… I spent 22 years in the military, so I know ALL about lousy hours and lack of pay… and that ‘Free’ medical I was promised??? I pay $450 for it, going up to $1100 a year, and I will be kicked to Medicare at 65 whether I like it or not… And with my VA disability, if I try to get insurance, it will run me an additional $700/mo for basic coverage just for me.