A fiscal black hole grows deeper
Add another half-trillion dollars to America’s debt.
No, Congress hasn’t been on another spending spree. (Yet.)
I’m talking about another $600 billion in debt — almost $2,000 for every man, woman and child — that state and local governments have racked up but don’t recognize.
I’m talking about money that we owe to just one category of retirees: Teachers. Money that we already would have known about if government followed the same accounting rules as private companies.
Add that money to the teacher-retirement debt we already knew about, and we’re talking about almost $1 trillion.
Whoever said “trillion” is the new “billion” wasn’t kidding.
These figures come from a new report, “Underfunded Teacher Pension Plans: It’s Worse Than You Think.” The authors argue the funds underestimate funding gaps by overestimating the rate of return on their investments. They say the funds could avoid this problem by following private-sector accounting rules, which require adjustments to account for pension investments’ risk.
That’s right: The unfunded liabilities of teacher pensions across the country have been understated by an amount — $600 billion — roughly equivalent to the 2008 bailout of Wall Street. And it’s because the plans, like the banks, weren’t accounting prudently enough for risk.
As a result, the plans nationwide are not close to the benchmark of 80 percent funded, as previously thought, but just more than half-funded.
“The Dow Jones Industrial Average would have to nearly double overnight to make up for the present underfunding of these plans,” write co-authors Josh Barro of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and Stuart Buck, a doctoral fellow at the University of Arkansas.
Georgia is better off than most states, which isn’t to say we’re in great shape.
Our Teachers Retirement System is still two-thirds funded after Barro and Buck’s adjustments. But they peg the plan’s unfunded liabilities at $23.6 billion, compared to the officially reported $4.8 billion. The difference in those figures, $18.8 billion, is greater than the entire 2011 state budget will be.
Yep, the hole just got deeper.
Actually, it got deeper a long time ago. For decades, governments have hired workers on the premise that they would earn lower wages but make up for the shortfall with better benefits and job security.
That premise is no longer true. USA Today reported last month that government workers earn 13 percent more than their private-sector counterparts in the same occupations. With benefits, public-sector compensation is an astounding 55 percent higher.
It’s a model that was bound to fail, because it allows elected officials to make promises their successors will have to keep.
“I think there is a real institutional problem with these systems where you get to make the promise now” about pay and benefits, Barro told me in a telephone interview Tuesday, “and you don’t have to pay for it for decades.”
Barro’s comment is a perfect description of the government model used in this country since the New Deal. The most crushing components of our growing federal debt are two programs that likewise promise today’s workers a share of their children’s future wages: Social Security and Medicare.
It is a failed model.
And we can’t afford to keep funding this failure much longer. Barro notes that our $1 trillion nationwide in unfunded liabilities for teacher pensions equals two years of our entire spending on K-12 education.
Federal debt of $12.8 trillion. Cumulative state and local debt of $2.4 trillion. State and local pension debts of $2 trillion (the estimated total including retirees besides teachers).
Happy Tax Day. It won’t get any easier from here.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
118 comments Add your comment
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
11:48 am
CJ, kindly point to the last use of Keynesian spending that was big and focused enough to do what its proponents said it would do.
The Tar and Feathers Party
April 15th, 2010
11:58 am
Clinton did not have a balanced budget, he borrowed tens of billions from the Social Security Trust Fund, but because the government scum are a pack of lying thieves, this money was not counted as borrowing. It was referred to as “intra-governmental transfer.” A lie by any other name is still a lie, and the annual surplus from ss has now ended, requiring the guv to start paying some interest on the trust fund in dollars that count against the budget deficit. Hence the alleged “crisis” in SS. SS has enough money to pay our benefits for decades, it is the general budget that is in crisis. I expect the liars in Washington to create a fake crisis under the guise of which they will steal some or all of our social security benefits, benefits we have already paid for, but the money was stolen by the likes of Barney Frank, Robert Byrd, Teddy Kennedy, and all the rest of the thieves in Washington. I demand revenge. Call it justice, call it anything you want, but hold the Washington liars accountable, and punish them severely. Strip Teddy’s name from all government buildings and projects, let his name disappear from history, except to be remembered as a liar and a thief.
Glenn
April 15th, 2010
12:00 pm
I hear ya Kyle . How about an economy in which we didn’t continue to lose billions every month in trade deficits . I never meant to suggest a closed economy . Just trying to level the playing field . Here is a staggering number for you .
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp
dylandawg
April 15th, 2010
12:01 pm
didn’t read the whole blog and hopefully someone already addressed it…. but those private/public comparisons were discredited right after they came out….stop using them
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
12:03 pm
dylandawg, we’ve already been through the fact that various studies about this exist, so please speak specifically to the one I’ve specifically mentioned.
dylandawg
April 15th, 2010
12:10 pm
politifact did a nice report on it. Specifically addressing a Cato study. I believe though not certain that USA Today quoted the CATO study. Regardless, there was a lot of coverage about all these studies when they first came out and they were severly flawed. I wouldn’t use it.
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
12:12 pm
That’s exactly what we’ve been through: USA Today did its own review of the data, and the Politifact check wasn’t disputing the Cato study so much as Sen. Scott Brown’s misstatement of the study’s findings.
No More Progressives!
April 15th, 2010
12:17 pm
CJ
April 14th, 2010
7:51 pm
The USA Today figures are not reflection of public-sector inefficiencies. Rather, they’re a reflection of private-sector greed.
Define private sector greed.
dylandawg
April 15th, 2010
12:22 pm
The upshot of the article is that these comparisions are meaningless. So to use them to make a point…any point…serves no purpose.
No More Progressives!
April 15th, 2010
12:23 pm
mit
April 15th, 2010
11:20 am
cut teacher pay, reduce schools to teaching read, writing, and arithmetic, and nothing else? Are you serious? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Not really. Disolve the Dept. of Education and push public education back down to the state level where it belongs. Ever since the Jimmy C. created the un-Contritutional DOE, test scores have fallen and cost-per-pupil has risen dramatically. We don’t even rank American kids in (international)Math scores because the Asians kick our butts.
CJ
April 15th, 2010
12:25 pm
“That’s not quite right, CJ. Anyone who thought Bush or any president could have maintained surpluses at that time is a real Pollyanna…Obama’s job now is to make sure the deficits fall, and sharply.”
You’re rewriting history again Kyle. Review Alan Greenspan’s testimony to Congress in advance of the Bush tax cuts and what he had to say about the projected surpluses — projections which you now claim came from “a real Pollyanna.” Those long-term tax cuts passed in ‘01 and accelerated in ‘03 were justified, in large part, using Greenspan’s testimony. Here is an excerpt from CNNMoney written early in 200:
“…Greenspan played down the idea that tax cuts would provide an immediate boost to the economy, saying that tax reduction is appropriate as a long-term economic measure now because of estimates of a larger-than-expected federal surplus…The Fed chief had long been a proponent of using budget surpluses to pay down the national debt first, instead of using additional revenue to pay for tax reduction. But Greenspan said government estimates project more than enough surplus funds to pay off the debt and reduce taxes too.”
With regard to the economy, Obama’s job, first and foremost, is to stabilize the economy and instill job growth. Those two items are necessary prerequisite to making sure that deficits fall.
Again, Obama inherited a debt that had more than doubled under Republican rule, and even with balanced budgets, would continue to grow exponentially due to the compound interest on that debt. In addition, Obama inherited a rapidly declining economy that caused a $700 billion-plus revenue loss in his first year in office and additional revenue losses in out years.
So the suggestion from those who ran up the debt at a record pace and ran the economy into a near-miss depression (i.e., people who vote Republican), that Obama should drive the economy into a ditch to prioritize reversing the debt that he inherited is ludicrous at best and disingenuous at worst.
Contrary to the lies and misrepresentations, Democrats are sincerely interested in balancing the budget, returning to surpluses and paying down the debt — but only after the patient is stabilized. Republican voters, on the other hand, didn’t care about deficits until a Democrat entered the White House. In addition, the Republican elite’s “starve the beast” strategy hasn’t worked (so far), and as a result, they’re clearly frustrated.
The Tar and Feathers Party
April 15th, 2010
12:28 pm
If I read Kyle right, he wants to eliminate our already paid for social security benefits, most likely to save himself having to pay the ~6% ss tax. Kyle, we have already paid a surplus into the trust fund of 2 Trillion dollars, see my cut and paste that you deleted yesterday. If it is a generational war you want, we can give it to you. We are the Giant Generation, we are 70 million strong, and we are older and meaner than you can imagine.
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
12:34 pm
You’ve read me wrong, Tar. Not the first time.
Gator Joe
April 15th, 2010
12:36 pm
Dear Kyle:
The problem of underfunded pensions, as stated in your article, are well presented. Bush and Cheney were faced with 9-ll and its aftermath, understood, but they did not need to involve us in Iraq which wasted lives and contributed (and continues) to budget deficits. By the way, were you calling attention to this type of deficit spending, much of it apart from the budget process, to avoid public scrutiny? Assuming the correctness of your point that President Obama’s policies will not address the debt, most of which was the result of the prior Republican administrations, his polices do address problems prior administrations ignored.
Jason T
April 15th, 2010
12:36 pm
CJ
April 15th, 2010
11:43 am
You’re right Jess. Unemployment wasn’t held to 8%. The stimulus should have been bigger and more specifically focused on job creation.
Riiiight. Laughable! Just throw more money at it.
CJ
April 15th, 2010
12:37 pm
“CJ, kindly point to the last use of Keynesian spending that was big and focused enough to do what its proponents said it would do.”
World War II.
Obviously the focus was on defeating the Axis powers, but doing so resulted in “Keynesian spending” on manufacturing and jobs. In the decades that followed, economic growth outpaced spending, and as a result, even with deficits, the national debt became a shrinking portion of GDP (that is until Ronald Reagan rode into town).
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
12:40 pm
CJ, not you’ve managed not only to misquote me but to mislead everyone on the blog. You left out the date of that article — unintentionally, I’ll assume — but for the benefit of everyone who won’t click through your link, the article was dated Jan. 25, 2001. In other words, before the bubble burst, and before 9/11.
As for the misquoting, I didn’t write, as you suggest, that anyone predicting surpluses on Jan. 25, 2001, was a Pollyanna. What I said was that anyone who expected Bush to maintain surpluses after a burst bubble and a major terrorist attack was a Pollyanna. Perhaps I should have said “in those times” to be clearer. If you didn’t put so much effort into discrediting me, no matter how much distortion is required, I might give you the benefit of the doubt.
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
12:43 pm
OK, everyone ready to go back to the World War II economy, raise your avatars.
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
12:56 pm
I should clarify: I’m referring to the recession that resulted when the tech bubble burst, beginning in March 2001. That’s when people, and the economy, began feeling the effects.
CJ
April 15th, 2010
1:13 pm
Please forgive the typo at 12:25. “written early in 200:” should have been “written early in 2001.”
The tax cuts that passed shortly after 9/11 were the same tax cuts that Bush campaigned on in 2000 and the same tax cuts that the Congress held hearings on throughout 2001. Given the evidence, and Greenspan’s testimony that such cuts would not provide an “immediate boost” to the economy, it’s ridiculous to suggest that 10-year tax cuts passed in ‘01, and accelerated and expanded in ‘03, were somehow intended as short-run stimulus in reaction to 9/11 (although Bush changed his justification for these tax cuts as needed).
With regard to when the “bubble burst”, there’s no specific date, but President elect Bush was arguing that we were in a recession in December of 2000. So again, it’s rewriting history to suggest that the economic decline was an unknown at the time of Greenspan’s testimony. In fact, again, he directly addressed the immediate effects that the proposed cuts would have on the economy (not much) specifically because of the weakening economic climate at the time.
The long-term projected surpluses didn’t cease to exist because of the bursting of the tech bubble and 9/11. They went away, in large part, because of Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, dramatic increases in agricultural subsides, and Medicare Part D — none of which the Party of “deficits don’t matter” ever attempted to pay for.
The Tar and Feathers Party
April 15th, 2010
1:14 pm
WWII did not directly end the Great Depression in America, the destruction of the worlds industrial plant ended the Great Depression in America. If Japan, Germany, England and all the rest wanted to rebuild, they had to import steel, machines, food, and consumer products from the only source in the world, America. Remember also we were the largest oil producer in the world before and after the war. If our alleged leaders had half a brain, they would have slowly shut our domestic oil production, and imported vast amounts of cheap arab oil, with the threat of reopening our massive oil fields always hanging over the arab’s heads. The leaders were too stupid to see far into the future, so they pumped America dry, and now we are at the mercy of the oil exporters. They will not be kind to us, and we do not deserve kindness.
Linda
April 15th, 2010
1:48 pm
Absent from this discussion is the fact that retirements funds are invested in corporations. The article Kyle referred to stated that part of the “discrepancy is attributable to the stock market drop precipitated by the 2007 financial crisis” & mentions the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Whether you work in the public or private sector, your pension fund, if you have one, is likely invested in corporations on Wall St., along with retirement accounts for those who are self-employed. Taxpayers whose retirement funds are not invested on Wall St. are still responsible financially for those of the public sector. The only retirement funds not invested are social security payments which the govt. SPENDS.
Corporations are nothing more than a large group of people with limited liability. They are recognized by law to have the same rights as individuals. They are owned by, managed by, hire, borrow from, sell to & represent we the people. We the people are the shareholders, managers, employees, creditors, customers & clients. They ARE the American people. When they fail, share holders loose their investment (retirement plans), new jobs are not created, employees loose their jobs, retirees loose their benefits, creditors loose their money & consumers pay higher prices–or the govt. bails them out–& taxpayers suffer in either case.
Large corporations supply us with our homes, their contents, our food, clothing, transportation, health care, our way of life.
Capitalism is not greed, but envy is a sin. Demonizing corporations is self-loathing.
(No, I have no ties to a corporation other than the average consumer/taxpayer.)
john
April 15th, 2010
1:53 pm
Kyle,
I wonder when Obama and Pelosi defecits quadruple anything Bush every did in the next 2-3 years if the cray libs out there will have anything to say then…I keep hearing libs say how taxes haven’t gone up except for the rich…while, yes, technically that is true…what the tea partiers and other conversatives are worried about is the INEVITABLE TAX INCREASES for all of us that are coming because of Obama’s crazy spending.
Keep up the good work Kyle….it’s so painful reading Tucker and Bookman’s liberal garbarge everyday….(I know, I know, they are your colleagues so I’m not supposed to bash them)
redneckbluedog
April 15th, 2010
2:10 pm
If you can read this blog….thank a teacher…!!!
Glenn
April 15th, 2010
2:11 pm
@ Linda
Large corporations also give an absurd amount of money to both parties to purchase democracy . Most of this money is given to hinder free enterprise , limit consumer protections, & get our tax dollars . Not questioning large corporations motives is ignorant .
retiredds
April 15th, 2010
2:12 pm
I think this brief piece in the AJC speaks to the duplicity of Republicans in GA. They decry the Obama administration and the future cost of healthcare. So what do they do? Read below, especially the last paragraph. Kyle, this is why I, personally, don’t believe ANYTHING that comes from the Republicans about fiscal responsibility. They say they are, but their actions almost always suggest the opposite. There is a name for that: hypocrisy.
The Georgia Budget & Policy Institute is calling on Gov. Sonny Perdue to veto a Republican fee and tax bill that was changed at the last minute Wednesday to include tax breaks for wealthy senior citizens and property owners.
“In order for Governor Perdue to maintain his record of fiscal responsibility, he should veto House Bill 1055,” the institute said in a prepared statement. “The legislature combined permanent tax cuts with much-needed revenue increases in HB 1055, turning the governor’s fiscally responsible proposal into a last minute tax giveaway.”
The bill started out as a revenue-raising measure, calling for a variety of fee increases and a so-called bed tax on hospitals. The extra money that would be generated has been committed to helping fund the state’s $17.8 billion budget.
But on Wednesday, the bill was amended in the House to include provisions eliminating the state’s small share (one-fourth of a mill) of local property taxes. It also was changed to include a phase-out of state income tax on retirement income of Georgians 65 and older.
Those two tax breaks, which wouldn’t start until 2012, would cost $380 million over five years by lawmakers’ projections.
The institute says this “adds to the alarming and long-term structural deficit in Georgia” and “could have serious negative implications for Georgia’s AAA bond rating.”
Republicans, who control both the House and Senate, said Wednesday that they’re delaying the implementation of the tax cuts with the belief that the economy will
Banned By Cindy
April 15th, 2010
2:16 pm
Man. Kyle be pwning CJ. Takin’ her to the woodshed. Arm-barred and tapped out.
Ron Paul is even with Obama now. Who’d a thunk it after Steele and that Fox commentator (”we should be taking our marching orders form Al Qaeda”) did their best to belittle him.
Viva La Revolution. Economic illiterates and liberty haters are goin’ down.
CrazyInGA
April 15th, 2010
2:20 pm
Capitalism might not be greed, however; the people who run corporations are definitely greedy. And greed is a sin.
Linda
April 15th, 2010
2:48 pm
Glenn@2:11, If you look at campaign contributors, there are only 4 corporations in the top 20 heavy hitters. There are also 4 associations & 11 unions who, of course, support Dems. If your goal is to question the motives of large donors, you are falling short by singling out corporations, who do not appear to be the real movers & shakers.
Demonizing, not questioning, is ignorant.
CJ
April 15th, 2010
2:49 pm
I responded to Kyle’s 12:40, but it appears to be floating in cyberspace. My previous post did indicate the timing of Greenspan’s testimony (”early in 2001″)
Here’s what you wrote Kyle: “When Bush introduced his first budget — for FY2002, which began 19 days after the twin towers fell — the budget surpluses were already in decline.
Note that the tax cuts were proposed by Governor Bush (i.e., Karl Rove) during his 2000 presidential campaign, rejustified as necessary stimulus for a weakening economy by President-elect Bush in December of 2000 (Greenspan disagreed in his 1/2001 testimony)), introduced in Februrary of 2001, debated in Congressional hearings throughout spring 2001, and signed into law June of 2001.
Given the timing of their proposals, debate and passage, the notion that the Bush tax cuts “began 19 days after the towers fell” is irrelevant to the original point — surpluses were forecast as far as the eye could see when those tax cuts were proposed, introduced, debated and passed. But what Presidents do in the interim matters.
Mr. Ed
April 15th, 2010
2:58 pm
The ‘Baggers should blame the republicans for supporting the insurance companies, banks, and Wall Street lobbyists over American families and small businesses.
The spending and tax policies of the last ten years caused the problems we have today. They turned record surpluses into record deficits, cut taxes for corporate CEO’s and the rich. The GOP is still protecting Wall Street and the big banks by opposing reforms that would protect consumers and prevent future bailouts.
Linda
April 15th, 2010
2:58 pm
Quote from Gov. Chris Chistie, NJ, “One state retiree, 49 yrs. old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension & health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life & nearly $500,000 for health care benefits–a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair? A retired teacher paid $62,000 toward her pension & nothing, yes, nothing, for full family medical, dental & vision coverage over her entire career. What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits & another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime. Is it “fair” for all of us & our children to have to pay for this excess?”
TGT
April 15th, 2010
3:09 pm
Here’s an interesting budget idea (at least for U.S. states):
Given the economic disaster that is California, former republican gubernatorial candidate there, Tom Campbell (now U.S. Senate candidate), has a particularly interesting budget plan. According to columnist George Will a few months ago, Campbell “favors resetting the budget cycle so that the state would accumulate one year’s revenues to be spent the following year, when precise knowledge would replace wishful thinking about available revenues.”
Campbell is no economic novice. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman was his faculty advisor. Campbell has served as a California State Senator, has been elected to the U.S. Congress five times, and has served as Director of Finance for the State of California.
According to Campbell’s Web site (while still running for governor), under current law, California’s legislature and governor set a budget based on what they expect revenue to be. Instead, Campbell notes, “they should set the budget on the lower of: 1) what they expect revenue to be, or 2) what the revenue actually was in the previous fiscal year. When revenue is growing, the extra amount will earn interest. When revenue is falling, the legislature will have one year’s lead time; they can spread the necessary cuts over two years. It will take some years to phase in this proposal. To be conservative, let’s give it 10 years. After 10 years, we will collect money in the current year, put it in an interest bearing account, and not spend it until the next year. What’s in that account is what we have to spend.”
Like many other states, Georgia’s constitution requires that it operate under a balanced budget. Also, like virtually every other state (according to my research), to determine the size of its budget, Georgia must make a revenue estimate. According to the Legislative Budget Office, “The Governor, who is the Budget Director, is responsible for making the official revenue estimate. He is assisted in this responsibility by a state economist under contract as a consultant with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, which manages the budget for the Governor. The basis for making revenue projections is a computerized econometrics model. From this model, a range of estimates is provided to the Governor by this economic consultant.”
Georgia was among many (if not most) states which had shortfalls in their 2010 budgets which had to be adjusted to. Trying to nail down accurate budget numbers is, to say the least, an inexact science. Why not remove the guesswork and let the previous year’s revenue fund the following year’s budget?
After all, isn’t this how it works with virtually every individual, family, business, church, etc. that operates with a budget? The previous month’s (or week’s) earnings pay for the next month’s expenses. Is it so far fetched to think that our government would budget as do most other institutions?
As U.S. Senate candidate, Rand Paul, (Congressman Ron Paul’s son) puts it, “People think that there is a different logic for an economy than there is for an individual.” In other words, what doesn’t make sense in a family or business budget should not make sense for the government.
The Tar and Feathers Party
April 15th, 2010
3:11 pm
Kyle wrote ” The most crushing components of our growing federal debt are two programs that likewise promise today’s workers a share of their children’s future wages: Social Security and Medicare.
It is a failed model. And we can’t afford to keep funding this failure much longer.” Your words sure read as though you want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare!
Winston Smith
April 15th, 2010
3:22 pm
Kyle:
Putting aside all the hogwash about foreign wars and helping my fellow man, it would be interesting to know how much teachers have actually contributed to their retirement benefits and pensions in hard dollars. I will humbly posit that the number (if available) is a pittance compared to the projected payout. Makes you wonder whether all the private sector bashers understand the outsized return public sector workers get on their “investments.”
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
3:26 pm
Tar: Change? Yes. Eliminate? No.
Winston: NJ Gov. Chris Christie has been hammering home this point in his state. I don’t know the comparable figures for Georgia but will look into it.
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
3:27 pm
Interesting idea, TGT.
Linda
April 15th, 2010
3:28 pm
Mr. Ed @ 2:58, The overall profit for the hc insurance industry is a mere 3.3%. There are a dozen or so medical-related industries whose profits exceed that of the insurers. I don’t know about you, but I would feel more secure if the profits for our insurers were higher in case there was a national epidemic.
The Dems demonize banks & Wall St. while, simultaneously, bailing them out, or worse, nationalizing them. The fed. govt. now controls 51% of our economy.
What caused our problems today started with the Dem ideology in the 1990’s with Affordable Housing, the belief that home ownership was a right, not a privilege. The cause of the problems of the 2015 will be the Dem ideology in 2010, the belief that health insurance was a right, not a privilege, as well as the belief that we can spend our way out of a recession into prosperity with money that we do not have for pork we do not need.
The GOP is not “still protecting Wall St. & big banks by opposing reforms.” The GOP could not stop the nationalization of our entire hc system by opposing it. The Dems could have passed financial reform a year ago.
I should be working
April 15th, 2010
3:43 pm
Not matter the issue it comes down to political favors trumping the national interest through the actions lying deceitful politicians. If either Liberals or Conservatives were true to the beliefs they espose a sustainable economy could be generated. However, it is a fantasy to think politicians will ever do more than pay back favors over the good of the nation. Perhaps we should populate both halls of Congress every year the way we do a jury and leave these people with specific instructions on what there purpose is…..wonder how that would work, possible chaos, but would it be any worse?
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
3:54 pm
I should: William F. Buckley expressed something similar when he said he’d rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty.
Marine
April 15th, 2010
4:01 pm
The only two jobs a good accountant has is to hide profit and not get caught.
TGT
April 15th, 2010
4:09 pm
BTW: In the latest Rasmussen poll Barbara Boxer leads Tom Campbell (her closest opponent) by only 2 points, 43-41.
Glenn
April 15th, 2010
4:11 pm
@ Linda
If you would have said labor unions supply us with our homes, their contents, our food, clothing, transportation, health care, our way of life.
and followed it with
Capitalism is not greed, but envy is a sin. Demonizing labor unions is self-loathing.
(No, I have no ties to a labor union other than the average consumer/taxpayer.)
I would have made roughly the same comment but said unions instead of corporations . One need not look past the biggest donor AT&T & see the face of corporate evil though . I will demonize AT&T & not feel ignorant in the least . And a blanket statement about the virtues of all large corporations I can’t let slide . Sorry Linda but it is my contention that for the most part big business has gotten lazy & done so with the help of government .
And Linda the 90’s are over . So what do we do now to make sure Americans don’t have to borrow another 700 billion with interest so we can give it to the banks & borrow it back with more interest . Thats a huge improvement over socialism . Though I think that is a pretty lame argument seeing a 10 dollar an hour foreign minority fruit picker could have gotten a loan 5 years ago for over half a million dollars from several banks without any government involvement . What would you propose ? Also Linda the health insurance providers could make more . They just would have to drop more of the sick people they insure . Sure the American taxpayer would still have to pay for these people but insurance companies would be even more profitable . Good stuff .
Winston Smith
April 15th, 2010
4:13 pm
Thanks Kyle–it would be enlightening to see how GA pensions stack up. I’ve followed Christie’s battle with the teachers unions closely and fear it is a losing battle.
As for the myth of the Golden Age of Clinton, I offer this query: why is it that a man who leaves his succecessor a massive imploding tech bubble, a ticking terrorism time bomb, an underfunded military and the beginnings of an affordable housing debacle considered a hero? To hear the clumsy attacks above, you’d think Bush did something ridiculous like, say, doubled down on the deficit, sent the unemployment rate spiralling into double digits, burnt nearly a trillion bucks with nothing to show for it and nationalized about a fifth of the economy via junk bonds floated to China. Now that would be irresponsible.
Glenn
April 15th, 2010
4:16 pm
Just saying Linda the problems out there right now are far past just liberal or conservative & so are the things that caused them .
dean
April 15th, 2010
4:24 pm
Can someone direct me to the USA Today study? I find this hard to believe and I have a good knowledge of government (city and county anyway) pay and private. My statistics professor in college told us you can make numbers say what you want.
historydawg
April 15th, 2010
4:26 pm
Did the “old, out-dated model” also include government bail-outs of banks, auto industries, big business (those who want to proclaim the greatness of business models but fail to follow them)?
Kyle Wingfield
April 15th, 2010
4:27 pm
dean, the link to the article is in the original post.
The Tar and Feathers Party
April 15th, 2010
4:32 pm
Kyle, any change will be designed by definition to cheat some of us who have paid into the ss system all our working lives, and helped build up this 2 trillion dollar trust fund. I know your plan, you seek to divide the Giant Generation, either along age lines, or along income lines. As long as the Giant Generation sticks together, we cannot be defeated. The minute Kyle and his ilk manage to split some of us off to victimize, we ALL lose. We will stick together, we will crush the liars and cheats beneath the weight of our wheelchairs! It is time to bring caning back into style.
Marcos
April 15th, 2010
4:39 pm
“I should: William F. Buckley expressed something similar when he said he’d rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty.”
Why do you conservatives HATE education and intelligence so much you have to bash it at every turn? I guess the more stupid you are the more gullible you are as well. Explains a lot.