Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Governor Scott Walker Takes on the Public Sector Unions in Wisconsin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 18th, 2011

40 Percent of Teachers Call in Sick…in West Bloomfield, Michigan

We start not in Wisconsin.  But in Michigan.  Another of the other Great Lakes States where the Republicans won control of their state house.  And there’s teacher trouble in one of their fair cities (see The West Bloomfield Teacher ‘Sick Out’ by Tom Gantert posted 2/18/2011 on Michigan Capitol Confidential).

About 40 percent of the West Bloomfield High School teachers didn’t show up for work on Feb. 15 in the midst of bitter contract negotiations.

Goodness, that’s a lot of teachers.  Pay and benefit packages for teachers in the West Bloomfield school district must be awful.

West Bloomfield teachers do not do any premium sharing for health insurance and do not have a deductible in their plan, Andrees said…

The total compensation of a West Bloomfield teacher grew 173 percent over an 11-year period, going from $47,346 to $129,637, according to information that was presented at a school board meeting in December.

The teacher’s salary started at $31,881 in 1999-00 and grew to $85,836 in 2010-11. Meanwhile, insurance payments climbed from $9,309 to $19,304 per year, and retirement contributions jumped from $3,717 to $16,854 per year.

Wait a tic.  Isn’t Michigan one of those states suffering from record unemployment?  Even though the federal government just spent billions of dollars to bail out GM and Chrysler to save jobs?  I mean, it’s pretty horrible in Michigan.  But I guess we need to put this aside and focus on what’s important.  There are teachers there who have been working a 9-month year for the measly compensation of $129,637.  What vicious, heartless bastards they must have in Michigan.

Incidentally, teachers get the good months off during the year.  The summer months.  How many of you would like to get paid $85,836, get $19,304 worth of healthcare insurance per year free with no deductible, retirement contributions totaling $16,854 per year AND have the three summer months off?  Not to mention all the holidays and breaks during the school year.  I dare say many people would like this.  Especially the taxpayers who pay for this while they themselves get little in compensation compared to this.  So I don’t see a mass outpouring of sympathy for these teachers.

You know, it’s good to be a teacher.  In the public school system.

Public Sector Unions Impoverishing States, Cities and their Trade Union Brethren

Public school teachers are part of the public sector.  And belong to a public sector union.  In the public sector, there is no competition.  We pay the public sector workers with tax dollars.  Unlike their counterparts in trade unions.  These people who build useful things for us are not paid with tax dollars.  The private sector pays them.  As such, they have to respond to market forces.  Unlike their brethren in the public sector (see Labor’s Coming Class War by William McGurn posted 1/4/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

Suddenly, it’s a different world. In this recession, for example, construction workers are suffering from unemployment levels roughly double the national rate, according to a recent analysis of federal jobs data by the Associated General Contractors of America. They are relearning, the hard way, that without a growing economy, all the labor-friendly laws and regulations in the world won’t keep them working.

What’s more, “blue-collar union workers are beginning to appreciate that the generous pensions and health benefits going to their counterparts in state and local government are coming out of their pockets,” says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “Not only that, they are beginning to understand the dysfunctional relationship between collective bargaining for government employees and their own job prospects.”

They get it.  All pay and benefits come from the private sector.  Whether paid from business profits.  Or taxes on business profits.  (Or taxes on our private paychecks.)  All taxes come from profitable business operations.  But excessive taxes dampen economic activity.  And kill jobs.  Everybody knows this.  Even some union people.  So something has to change.  And some state governors are stepping up.

The signs of this new awakening are gathering. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie rightly becomes a YouTube sensation for taking on his state’s obstinate public-sector unions…

Over in New York, meanwhile, newly inaugurated Gov. Andrew Cuomo faces a similar battle. Mr. Cuomo campaigned on a cap on property taxes and a freeze on state salaries, both anathema to the powerful state-employee unions…

Elsewhere, in 2005 Republican Govs. Mitch Daniels and Matt Blunt used executive orders to end collective bargaining with state employees in Indiana and Missouri, respectively. Now the incoming Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin—John Kasich and Scott Walker—are targeting collective bargaining for government workers in their states.

Scott Walker and Wisconsin.  But more of that later. 

In some ways, this new appreciation for the private sector is simply back to the future. FDR, for example, warned in 1937 that collective bargaining “cannot be transplanted into the public service.” In the old days, unions understood economic growth. Mr. Malanga points to AFL-CIO President George Meany’s strong support for the JFK tax cuts as an example.

These days the two types of worker inhabit two very different worlds. In the private sector, union workers increasingly pay for more of their own health care, and they have defined contribution pension plans such as 401(k)s. In this they have something fundamental in common even with the fat cats on Wall Street: Both need their companies to succeed.

By contrast, government unions use their political clout to elect those who set their pay: the politicians. In exchange, these unions are rewarded with contracts whose pension and health-care provisions now threaten many municipalities and states with bankruptcy. In response to the crisis, government unions demand more and higher taxes. Which of course makes people who have money less inclined to look to those states to make the investments that create jobs for, say, iron workers, electricians and construction workers.

Now, with that background, let’s look at Wisconsin.

40 Percent of Teachers Call in Sick…in Madison, Wisconsin

Just like in Bloomfield, Michigan, teachers are calling in sick (see Schools in Wisconsin’s capital close after protesting teachers call in sick posted 2/16/2011 on myfoxorlando.com).

MADISON, Wis (NewsCore) – Public schools in Madison, Wis., were closed Wednesday after 40 percent of the 2,600 teachers protesting a controversial budget bill called in sick.

School officials were forced to cancel classes, as there were not enough substitute teachers available to cover the absentees, Madison Metropolitan School District superintendent Dan Nerad told local newspaper the Journal Sentinel.

Though in Wisconsin they’re saying little about what their current pay and benefits are.  One can only assume they are as generous as they are in West Bloomfield.  Because if they are awful they would have told us how awful they are. 

President Obama Declares War on Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

So how awful are things really in Wisconsin?  From the media reports it sounds like the end of world.  That Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, is bringing back slavery.  Even the president is joining the fight against the elected government of Wisconsin (see Obama joins Wisconsin’s budget battle, opposing Republican anti-union bill by Brady Dennis and Peter Wallsten posted 2/18/2011 on The Washington Post).

The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to mobilize thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights.

By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were working to organize additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

So much for federalism.  Thank God Thomas Jefferson didn’t live to see this.  This meddling by the executive power into a state’s affair is worse than he even feared.  Even Alexander Hamilton would not approve.  And he was in favor of a strong executive.

The Worst of the Assault on Public Sector Unions – Asking them to Live like the Rest of Us

So what is so vile, so repugnant, so evil in the state of Wisconsin?

Under Walker’s plan, most public workers – excluding police, firefighters and state troopers – would have to pay half of their pension costs and at least 12 percent of their health-care costs. They would lose bargaining rights for anything other than pay.

Well that doesn’t sound so bad.  People in the private sector often pay 100% of their retirement.  A pretty hefty share of their health-care costs.  And something like 90% of the private sector doesn’t even have any bargaining rights.  Other than quitting a job if it is so vile, so repugnant and so evil.  And, you know what?  Those jobs in Wisconsin must be pretty damn good.  I mean, to protest like that can only mean one thing.  That these jobs are the best jobs around.  For there isn’t a chance in hell they’ll find anything as good in the private sector.  Which is why they simply don’t quit those ‘God-awful’ jobs.

Beyond their short-term fiscal problems, many states face pension and retiree health-care costs that some analysts say are unsustainable. Some states already are curtailing retirement benefits for new employees, although many analysts say it will take much more to bring their long-term obligations in line.

The huge debt burdens coupled with the impending cutoff of federal stimulus aid later this year have spurred talk of a federal bailout. The White House has dismissed such speculation, saying states have the wherewithal to raise taxes, cut programs and renegotiate employee contracts to balance their books.

What?!?  Our federal stimulus paid for those fat pension and healthcare benefits?  Wasn’t that money suppose to stimulate economic activity?  Create jobs?  Could it be that it was a slush fund all along to reward loyal Democratic supporters?  Good God, can it be that Rush Limbaugh was right?

In Wisconsin, state Democratic senators staged a protest of their own Thursday, refusing to show up at the Capitol for an 11 a.m. quorum call – delaying a vote that would have almost certainly seen the spending cuts pass.

I guess elections only have consequences when Democrats win.  When Barack Obama won, he told the Republicans, sure, you can give me your ideas about how to fix the economy.  I won’t use any of them.  Because elections have consequences.  And I won.  Perhaps the Republicans should have hid during the Obamacare vote.

“Many of the companies I went by, like so many others across the state, don’t have pensions, and the 401(k)s they have over the last year or two, they’ve had to suspend the employer contribution,” Walker told Milwaukee radio station WTMJ. “So, not a lot of sympathy from these guys in private-sector manufacturing companies who I think reflect a lot of the workers in the state who say what we’re asking for is pretty modest.”

What’s good for the private sector is good for the private sector.  The public sector apparently deserves better.  And with record unemployment, I’m sure they’ll get a lot of sympathy from the taxpayers paying their salary and benefits.  Not.

Public Sector Unions and the President are trying to Maintain a Privileged Elite

FDR got it.  The trade unions get it.  And most of the taxpayers lucky enough to still have a job in the worst recession since the Great Depression get it.  If you don’t have a healthy economy there is no money for anyone.  High taxes kill economic activity.  And there is only one way to pay generous public sector pay and benefits.  High taxes. 

We have come to a crossroads.  In one direction there is prosperity.  In the other there isn’t.  The governors in New Jersey, New York, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and, of course, Wisconsin, are trying to go down the road to prosperity.  While public sector unions and the president are trying to maintain a privileged elite.  At the expense of the ordinary American.  Who will win?  We’ll find out in Wisconsin.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Public Sector Pay and Benefits are Bankrupting France and New Jersey

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 22nd, 2010

Soon, in France, You’ll be Able to Retire Before You Start Working – If the Protestors Get Their Way

Je suis français.  I am French.  And being French, it is my birthright to get lots of free stuff.  Or so says Gilly, a cemetery union representative in Marseille.  The following quotes come from AP’s French strike to save ‘birthright’ of privileges posted 10/20/2010 on Google News.

For Gilly and many other Frenchmen and women, social benefits such as long vacations, state-subsidized health care and early retirement are more than just luxuries: They’re seen as a birthright — an essential part of the identity of today’s France.

I remember reading about the French Paradox.  While Americans were suffering epidemics of heart disease, the French were living to ripe old ages.  Free from heart disease.  The paradox?  The French diet.  Heavy creams.  Cheese.  Wine.  Sure, the Americans eat a lot of crap.  But how can the French have such a high cholesterol diet and not suffer heart disease like the Americans?  Perhaps this can explain it:

“We want to stop working at 60 because it’s something our parents, our grandparents and even our great-grandparents fought for,” says Gilly, 50, a union representative at Saint-Pierre Cemetery, the largest in this bustling Mediterranean port city.

Retire at 60?  Work for half of your life (or less) and enjoy a generous retirement.  No wonder they’re living so long.  No stress.  Cradle to grave welfare.  An early retirement.  Gosh, that sounds good.  Almost too good to be true.  Once upon a time, in feudal France, you worked from childhood until you died.  Things have definitely got better.  Just how long has it been this good?  According to Gilly, it goes back generations.  All the way to his great-grandparents.  But has it?

It was in 1982, under Socialist President Francois Mitterrand, that the minimum age to stop working was lowered from 65 to 60. The measure, emblematic of the 14-year Mitterrand presidency, was adopted by a special ordinance that bypassed parliament.

And now the government wants to raise the retirement age to 62.  You can understand Gilly’s consternation.  If you do the math, the average lifespan per generation must be somewhere around 10 years.  So one can understand how the 50 year old Gilly is anxious to retire at age 60 instead of at age 62.  Because people in his family rarely live beyond 10 years of age.  Unless Gilly is exaggerating for effect.  Or lying.  Because the French were retiring at age 65 until Mitterrand changed that in 1982.

Tax the Rich, Middle Class and Anyone Else Who Isn’t in the Public Sector

This is all well and good as long as someone else is paying the bill.  And this is something that the people in the social democracies don’t understand.  There is a limit to the treasury’s generosity.  For the public treasury to pay these very generous benefits, there has to be money in the treasury.  And states fill their treasury, basically, in one of three ways: taxing, borrowing and printing money. 

If they tax too much, people will have less disposable income.  They will buy less.  Private business will see a loss in sales revenue.  At the same time, they will have to pay more in taxes.  They may lay off employees to adjust to the reduced demand and higher tax burden.  The economy will slow into a recession. 

If they borrow too much money, interest rates will rise.  This will increase the interest people pay on their credit cards.  They will buy less.  Private businesses will see a loss in sales revenue while their costs go up (because of the higher interest rates).  They may lay off employees to adjust to the reduced demand and higher costs.  The economy will slow into a recession.

If they print too much money, they may ignite inflation.  Inflation raises prices.  People buy less because of high prices.  Private businesses will see their costs go up with these higher prices.  They may lay off employees to adjust to the reduced demand and higher costs.  The economy will slow into a recession.

To summarize, excessive government spending leads to recession.  Which results in fewer jobs in the private sector.  This is a big problem for those public sector jobs.  Because it’s the taxes from those private sector jobs that pay for those public sector jobs.  In other words, the more the public sector demands, the more they kill the private sector, the golden goose providing that rich public sector pay and those glorious public sector benefits.

The Sans-Culottes are Very Much Avec-Culottes These Days – But They Still Revolt

I’m sure the French understand this.  I mean, how bad is it really getting over there?  Well, see Clashes, protests in French tensions over pensions by AP’s Angela Charlton on www. apnews.myway.com.  She begins with:

PARIS (AP) – Protesters blockaded Marseille’s airport, Lady Gaga canceled concerts in Paris and rioting youths attacked police in Lyon on Thursday ahead of a tense Senate vote on raising the retirement age.

A quarter of the nation’s gas stations were out of fuel despite President Nicolas Sarkozy’s orders to force open depots barricaded by striking workers.

Gasoline shortages and violence on the margins of student protests have heightened the standoff between the government and labor unions who see retirement at 60 as a hard-earned right.

New violence broke out in Lyon, as police chased rampaging youths who overturned a car and hurled bottles. Riot officers tried to subdue the violence with tear gas. A gendarme helicopter circled overhead.

Wow.  If it wasn’t for the Lady Gaga and the airport and the gas stations and the police helicopter, you’d think the sans-culottes were making another revolution.  It brings to mind the classic lyrics of Adam and the Ants’ classic Ant Rap (my sister was a BIG fan):

Liberté, égalité, au jourd’hui c’est tres tres tres

Voici l’opportunite nous incroyables!

But this ain’t the 18th century.  And famine isn’t a way of life for the masses.  No.  In fact, life is pretty darn good.  No 18th century peasant lived as grand.  In fact, the life they’re protesting about today was closer to the French nobility than it was to the Third Estate in 1789.  These aren’t food riots.  This generation just doesn’t want to work another 2 years before retirement. 

It would appear that these protestors don’t understand the intricacies of a market economy.  Perhaps they have lived too long in a quasi-socialist state.  Been brainwashed by their unions.  Or maybe they just don’t care.  As long as they get their benefits now they don’t care how they impoverish future generations.  It’s a pity.  How a minority of the French people can destroy a great nation. 

Good Work if You Can Get it – and You Can Get it if You Belong to a Public Sector Union

One wonders how people can resort to violence.  Of course, when you consider how much better the public sector lives than the private sector, you wonder how this hasn’t exploded earlier.  Let’s go across the pond.  To New Jersey.  But first, if you work in the private sector, pause for a moment and think about your pay and benefits.  How hard you work and how little time you get off.  Feel overworked and underpaid?  If you worked a 60-hour week or two, you probably do.  Now, think about the last time some public sector union went on strike.  When they asked you to feel their pain.  To support their cause.  Okay, now read this excerpt from a My FOX New York article by Luke Funk (see Audit: NJ Turnpike Wasted Millions On Perks on www.myfoxny.com):

MYFOXNY.COM – Auditors say the New Jersey Turnpike Authority wasted $43 million on unneeded perks and bonuses.  In one case, an employee with a base salary of $73,469 earned $321,985 when all payouts and bonuses were included.

How does that make you feel?  Think about this the next time you get change from the person sitting in a New Jersey toll booth.  Think about your skill level and your pay.  Then think about the toll booth occupant’s skill level and pay.  Now switch places and imagine someone wanting to cut your pay and benefits.  I mean, if someone was trying to cut your pay by, say, $300,000 because the state is on the brink of bankruptcy, what would you do?  Start looking in the want ads for another unskilled job that pays 3-5 times of a skilled job in the private sector?  Or are you going to do what the French are doing?

Is it any wonder Europe is burning?  First Greece.  Now France.  You get pay and benefits like this and you live like royalty.  And one thing about royalty.  They don’t abdicate without a fight.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,