Obama: "...the private sector has been hiring at a solid pace over the last 27 months. But one of the biggest weaknesses has been state and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 Americans. These are teachers and cops and firefighters. Congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now, giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring. ... [in response to press questions:] Overall, the private sector has been doing a good job creating jobs. We've seen record profits in the corporate sector. The big challenge we have in our economy right now is state and local government hiring has been going in the wrong direction. You've seen teacher layoffs, police officers, cops, firefighters being laid off. ... The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we’ve created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government -- oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in." source

Romney: "He said the private sector is doing fine. Is he really that out of touch? I think he is defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people. ... he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people. ... Has there ever been an American president who is so far from reality? ... For the president of the United States to stand up and say the private sector is doing fine is going to go down in history as an extraordinary miscalculation and misunderstanding by a president who’s out of touch." source and source - exact order of phrases uncertain

At Bloomberg News, Josh Barrow explains WHY state and local hiring/employment is down. In short: they've painted themselves into a corner by doing things like "1. Giving out raises faster than revenues were growing. 2. Giving out raises and increasing benefits when revenues were falling. 3. Giving out raises and benefits retroactively. 4. Allowing employees to cash out unlimited amounts of sick leave when they retire. and 5. Providing lifetime health care for retirees." (That list was provided by the Democratic Mayor of San Jose, California.)

My opinion: both Obama and Romney are right and wrong. Obama's main error is thinking that sending pure cash to cities and states is the answer. Romney's main error is thinking that the message of Wisconsin is that people want fewer public servants; what they want is less rapaciously greedy and unrealistic public employee unions (and pols who knuckle under to them).

purple

Obama's main error is thinking that sending pure cash to cities and states is the answer.

Doesn't that depend on what the question is? If the question is, how do you immediately alleviate unemployment .... that would be an answer. If the question is "how do we stimulate the economy to encourage organic growth". It might also be an answer.
If the question is, "how do we live within our means and balance our budgets?" It sure as hell isn't a long term answer....

purple

Romney's main error is thinking that the message of Wisconsin is that people want fewer public servants; what they want is less rapaciously greedy and unrealistic public employee unions (and pols who knuckle under to them).

You could say, that people want fair deals? And certainly a lot of the pensions and benefits do seem unfair to taxpayers in private employment... Its a parallel to the Occupy Wall Street notion that the system has been unfair to most in the working and middle class..

The problem is that the main beneficiaries of generous public pay and conditions deals are the higher levels of management. The guys at the lower level (who tend to do the work, rather than 'manage' it) are the ones who often pay the price in terms of job cuts.

Actually, I see the very same thing in the private sector. Big bonuses for managers who preside over poor performance (how about a massive fine from a regulator for misselling?), but redundancies for the rank and file. Redundancies that, I found out last week, mean we have IT assets with no known technical owners because the last one got laid off and no replacement was nominated.

/mini-rant

dan

The problem is that the main beneficiaries of generous public pay and conditions deals are the higher levels of management

Not always. Ordinary cops and firemen in particular in a lot of jurisdictions have pretty comfortable retirement packages at ages that would appeal to Greeks.
And a lot of Municipal and State pension plans in the US were put together with little regard to true inflationary stability. Compensation were often based upon projected results from investment...
It is true that compensation in private industry is hugely out of line and the philosophy and controls placed on compensation have been surrendered to management. Who reward themseves with little regard to long term corporate performance or goals..
Corporate governance is not what it once was...

Well, you always have to buy off the cops, right? To be honest, we don't want 60 year old cops who can't afford to retire, and firefighting is also pretty dangerous and demanding, so decent retirement terms for those professions are not so bad. There are limits to how generous this should be, but let's not make out that these are gougers.

a common practice for firemen and police is to work tons of overtime in their final year, and in that last year to get a payout for any unused sick and vacation time. In many states, these excess amounts in the final year can be used to determine final pension payments. So, for example, if you are making $75,000 per year, you can actually get your final year earnings up to say$130,000; your final pension may then be 80% of the $130,000 per year for the rest of your life.

danivon wrote:Well, you always have to buy off the cops, right? To be honest, we don't want 60 year old cops who can't afford to retire, and firefighting is also pretty dangerous and demanding, so decent retirement terms for those professions are not so bad. There are limits to how generous this should be, but let's not make out that these are gougers.

When you're right, you're right. There are some jobs--cops and firemen among them--that are so physically taxing (intermittently) that they are not suitable for older employees.

Ray Jay wrote:a common practice for firemen and police is to work tons of overtime in their final year, and in that last year to get a payout for any unused sick and vacation time. In many states, these excess amounts in the final year can be used to determine final pension payments. So, for example, if you are making $75,000 per year, you can actually get your final year earnings up to say$130,000; your final pension may then be 80% of the $130,000 per year for the rest of your life.

Not all departments run like that (mine didn't). However, there are always little carve-outs. What is interesting is how often they do favor management. For example, on our department captains and above received department-paid civilian vehicles. Obviously, those cut their cost of living (gas, insurance, maintenance), but they also received massive subsidies for healthcare, etc., that were also calculated into retirement pay.

Back to the main topic:

Purple wrote:Romney: "He said the private sector is doing fine. Is he really that out of touch? I think he is defining what it means to be detached and out of touch with the American people. ... he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people. ...

I think you have this wrong. Romney was only wrong in this sense: the message of Wisconsin was that people thought the unions were getting over on the taxpayers. They were also sick of recalls.

However, Romney is right that the mood of the American populace is not "Let's have the Federal government bailout the States again." That is the fundamental problem President Obama has. His core financial plan is "let's rebuild the middle class by hiring more government workers." That is NOT what people want. They want accountability and they want an environment wherein companies get back to hiring people. Most people don't believe President Obama's stewardship of the economy has been too great.

Fates right when he says that competing visions for the economy are what will settle the election. But what is Mitts plan?

Following last month's disappointing jobs report, Romney offered six specific ideas to lift the flagging economy. Reported Greg Sargent:
He said he would tap our energy resources to "put a lot of people to work in the energy sector." He said he'd repeal Obamacare, which is "scaring small businesses from hiring." He said he'd balance the budget so people know "investing in America is going to yield a return in dollars worth something." He vowed to "open up new markets in American trade." He said he'd revamp the National Labor Relations Board and lower tax rates on employers, both of which would make it easier to hire people.
Sargent asked a few top economists whether Romney's ideas would actually create jobs. "On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term," responded Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody's Analytics. "If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower."

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/13/154910893 ... ney-doesnt

Did Sargeant miss something in Mitts plan Fate? Its maybe hard to know with Mitt, because he vacilates and avoids direct answers an awful lot more than even the average politician. Maybe he's trying to give himself enough room that if he does win, he can make sound policy decisions but right now he is so fenced in by what his base will accept that the policies he can espouse are largely retreads. Those that have pretty much failed to deliver in the past. Obamas challenge is to make it clear that Romney's policies were tried by Bush...

rickyp wrote:Fates right when he says that competing visions for the economy are what will settle the election. But what is Mitts plan?

Following last month's disappointing jobs report, Romney offered six specific ideas to lift the flagging economy. Reported Greg Sargent:
He said he would tap our energy resources to "put a lot of people to work in the energy sector." He said he'd repeal Obamacare, which is "scaring small businesses from hiring." He said he'd balance the budget so people know "investing in America is going to yield a return in dollars worth something." He vowed to "open up new markets in American trade." He said he'd revamp the National Labor Relations Board and lower tax rates on employers, both of which would make it easier to hire people.
Sargent asked a few top economists whether Romney's ideas would actually create jobs. "On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term," responded Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody's Analytics. "If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/13/154910893 ... ney-doesnt

Did Sargeant miss something in Mitts plan Fate? Its maybe hard to know with Mitt, because he vacilates and avoids direct answers an awful lot more than even the average politician. Maybe he's trying to give himself enough room that if he does win, he can make sound policy decisions but right now he is so fenced in by what his base will accept that the policies he can espouse are largely retreads. Those that have pretty much failed to deliver in the past. Obamas challenge is to make it clear that Romney's policies were tried by Bush...

Hijack alert!

I said nothing like this in this thread.

dr F

When you're right, you're right. There are some jobs--cops and firemen among them--that are so physically taxing (intermittently) that they are not suitable for older employees.

Compared to miners, loggers, fishermen ... cops and firemen have it easy. Both in danger and in work conditions ad effort required.
It may be that there is a need to weed out older fire and police because of physical limitations, but pensions have tended to be very generous, in part because of the romanticizing of the positions. Especially firemen. No one is ever sorry to see a firemen coming to get them. (Cops, sometimes yes, sometimes no...) Miners on the other hand, we tend not to value so much. And yet miners, loggers and fishermen die on the job more than any other occupation.
.
The need to address pensions is pointed out clearly by the Pew study released today.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Recession-plagued states diverted scarce money away from pensions to pay for more immediate concerns, leaving a $757 billion hole in the retirement funds covering millions of public employees, according to a study released Monday.
The Pew Center on the States found 34 states failed to maintain safe levels of money in the pension funds, which most experts agree is about 80 percent of long-term obligations. Four states - Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky and Rhode Island - didn't even have 55 percent of the money they'll need in the long run.
The total gap between the money states had available and what they'll have to pay out in the decades ahead reached $757 billion in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available. That was up 9 percent from the year before, according to the study entitled "The Widening Gap Update."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/06/18/3 ... rylink=cpy

rickyp wrote:dr F

When you're right, you're right. There are some jobs--cops and firemen among them--that are so physically taxing (intermittently) that they are not suitable for older employees.

Compared to miners, loggers, fishermen ... cops and firemen have it easy. Both in danger and in work conditions ad effort required.
It may be that there is a need to weed out older fire and police because of physical limitations, but pensions have tended to be very generous, in part because of the romanticizing of the positions. Especially firemen. No one is ever sorry to see a firemen coming to get them. (Cops, sometimes yes, sometimes no...) Miners on the other hand, we tend not to value so much. And yet miners, loggers and fishermen die on the job more than any other occupation.
.
The need to address pensions is pointed out clearly by the Pew study released today.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Recession-plagued states diverted scarce money away from pensions to pay for more immediate concerns, leaving a $757 billion hole in the retirement funds covering millions of public employees, according to a study released Monday.
The Pew Center on the States found 34 states failed to maintain safe levels of money in the pension funds, which most experts agree is about 80 percent of long-term obligations. Four states - Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky and Rhode Island - didn't even have 55 percent of the money they'll need in the long run.
The total gap between the money states had available and what they'll have to pay out in the decades ahead reached $757 billion in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available. That was up 9 percent from the year before, according to the study entitled "The Widening Gap Update."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/06/18/3 ... rylink=cpy

Your inability to stay on topic is quickly becoming legendary.

1. The discussion is on public employees. I don't think many States or municipalities are hiring "miners, loggers, fishermen." If they are, it's certainly not a major problem.

2. Those "miners, loggers, fishermen" are not part of the governmental pension crunch.

3. Back on topic, who is it who absolutely will not deal with the pension issue? Why, it's liberal Democrats!

Its entirely on topic. We're discussing lavish public pensions. Overly lavish.
You're apparently a guy who thinks police and fire fighters are uniquley qualified to have early and rich public pensions..
I think their jobs aren't that dangerous or strenuous and they don't deserve particularly attractive terms.

rickyp wrote:Its entirely on topic. We're discussing lavish public pensions. Overly lavish.
You're apparently a guy who thinks police and fire fighters are uniquley qualified to have early and rich public pensions..
I think their jobs aren't that dangerous or strenuous and they don't deserve particularly attractive terms.

Um, okay, please address this since you brought it up:

The discussion is on public employees. I don't think many States or municipalities are hiring "miners, loggers, fishermen." If they are, it's certainly not a major problem.

Frankly, I don't think you know what cops or firemen do. Imagine being 60 and going into a burning building to carry an adult out. I don't think you'll find many 60 year-olds who can do that.

If you don't like the system, reform it. What you will find is a lot fewer people willing to do dangerous jobs without guarantee of a decent pension. That's okay, maybe some oompa-loompas will do it for Skittles.

Ironies abound in the public pension debate. Firemen and policemen tend be conservative in their views and vote Republican, yet they love unions when it is in their self-interest. In other words, a large number of public union employees vote for Republicans who would be against pro-union poliicies, yet these same employees have no problem feeding at the public trough. As RickyP points out we could pay policemen and firemen a lot less money (frankly I have not seen too many teachers who are making huge salaries or getting huge pensions--they tend to be firefighters or policemen or at least in California prison guards). There is a large supply of qualified people who would like to get those jobs, meaning we could pay less for qualified applicants.

Part of me hates to see this endless pursuit by Republicans to end any good unionized jobs that are out there, but clearly policemen and firefighters have been getting it too good (and it doeesn't help that they are getting their freebies because of literal blood given by previous generations of union members in the private sector, yet their politics are anti-union). In any case, public union benefits cannot continue when private sector unions have disappeared. Private sector employees are not getting these types of benefits, so there is absolutely no reason that public employees should be getting better benefits than the private sector. I am all for private sector employees getting the type of benefits that public union are now getting (within reason, some of the benefits are clearly out of control), but since they are not then we should be cutting benefits to public uinons. Just give public employees compensation comparable to similar positions in the private sector--no more, no less.

freeman2 wrote:Ironies abound in the public pension debate. Firemen and policemen tend be conservative in their views and vote Republican, yet they love unions when it is in their self-interest.

False. I know a lot more fireman and cops than you do. I know very few who "love unions." We tolerate them because management has a propensity to make mountains out of molehills and union legal representation is cheaper than us all hiring our own attorneys.

As RickyP points out we could pay policemen and firemen a lot less money (frankly I have not seen too many teachers who are making huge salaries or getting huge pensions--they tend to be firefighters or policemen or at least in California prison guards). There is a large supply of qualified people who would like to get those jobs, meaning we could pay less for qualified applicants.

Try it.

Not too many teachers are risking their lives on a daily basis. I don't know many people who want to duck bullets or run into burning buildings for a living. If you know a lot of them, you must run in an odd circle.

Teachers have 3 months off, can't seem to get fired for anything less than child molesting--not a bad gig.