Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps an observation by Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, will help put the claims by Mr. Obama and Mr. Trumka that the union workers in Wisconsin are both oppressed and that unions themselves are under assault into some context. Mr. von Spakovsky has noted that:
"From 2001 to 2010, Wisconsin taxpayers paid more than $8 billion for state employee health care coverage, while state employees contributed only $398 million, less than 5% of the total costs. From 2000 to 2009, taxpayers paid $12.6 billion for public employee pensions, while the employees only contributed $55.4 million, less than 0.5% of the total cost."
This means that, with a population of about 5,500,000 people, the average annual costs to each Wisconsin resident for public employee healthcare and pensions have been $140 and $250 respectively. Not per family. Per citizen. For a family of four, that means a total of $1,560 each and every year in an additional tax burden.
This is what Mr. Obama and Mr. Trumka view as union members being oppressed and why unions are trying to intimidate lawmakers and Governor Walker, and by proxy, every citizen of Wisconsin.
In an OpinionJournal.com essay, What's at Stake in Wisconsin's Budget Battle, The Wall Street Journal's columnist John Fund discusses "Who's in charge of our political system -- voters or unions?"
02-20-2011, 09:45 PM
grant516
n/a posts
I love how teachers are called out, in a forum whose own topic headline contains a misuse of grammar.
Haha. It's like... GO AWaI TEACHRS, we dont NEED u!
Walter, your statistics come from a member of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that is playing a bit with the numbers. First of all pension costs are funded based on the assumption of an 8% per year return on the investment of contributions. In cases(such as 2007-2009, where the stock market took a hit), the returns were low or negative and the state is obligated to make up of the difference to keep the pension system fully funded. The idea is that since in the long term, the year on year increase is 9.4%(Observations: Average Stock Market Total Return: 19xx through 2010), 8% would be a reasonable return to base future obligations on. However, since the market tanked from 2007-2009, the pension system has become a big problem. The remainder is not the total pension obligations, the vast majority is paid by the pension fund investments. Health care costs have exploded everywhere and prior negotiated agreements will have to be modified. In fact, teachers aren't complaining about the increased health care contributions. That being said, collective bargaining (aka the reason to have a union) is the major argument that I fully support. I am not union, but I know for a fact that many of the benefits that I take for granted(40 hr work week, vacation time, health benefits) are due to the struggles of union workers in the past. I also see the way employment is heading with businesses relying on temp/contract workers(no benefits, no stability) and I can see the purpose of being represented by a larger organization with more bargaining power.
Walter, your statistics come from a member of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that is playing a bit with the numbers. First of all pension costs are funded based on the assumption of an 8% per year return on the investment of contributions. In cases(such as 2007-2009, where the stock market took a hit), the returns were low or negative and the state is obligated to make up of the difference to keep the pension system fully funded. The idea is that since in the long term, the year on year increase is 9.4%(Observations: Average Stock Market Total Return: 19xx through 2010), 8% would be a reasonable return to base future obligations on. However, since the market tanked from 2007-2009, the pension system has become a big problem. The remainder is not the total pension obligations, the vast majority is paid by the pension fund investments. Health care costs have exploded everywhere and prior negotiated agreements will have to be modified. In fact, teachers aren't complaining about the increased health care contributions. That being said, collective bargaining (aka the reason to have a union) is the major argument that I fully support. I am not union, but I know for a fact that many of the benefits that I take for granted(40 hr work week, vacation time, health benefits) are due to the struggles of union workers in the past. I also see the way employment is heading with businesses relying on temp/contract workers(no benefits, no stability) and I can see the purpose of being represented by a larger organization with more bargaining power.
I have no problem with private unions. They are subject to the market conditions that everyone else is subject to. But, public unions are a plague upon our community. Because, through political contributions they can effectively be on both sides of the bargaining table and the taxpayer is the one who loses out. Allow public unions to bargain on non wage topics such as safety and work conditions, but not on salary, benefits, or retirement. Those things should be set down according to what the state needs to pay to fill the quota of qualified individuals for the positions.
Walter, your statistics come from a member of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that is playing a bit with the numbers. First of all pension costs are funded based on the assumption of an 8% per year return on the investment of contributions. In cases(such as 2007-2009, where the stock market took a hit), the returns were low or negative and the state is obligated to make up of the difference to keep the pension system fully funded. The idea is that since in the long term, the year on year increase is 9.4%
No, the idea is let's play make-believe and double the pension fund's assets every 9 years and hope we never run out of other people's money.
The Empire Center for New York State Policy came out with a similar report on our exploding, unsustainable pension costs> New York's Exploding Pension Costs
This has to be the largest ponzi scheme ever in the history of the US.
Let me guess, they are a "conservative think-tank" too, so we should disregard them?
Hell no, pension funds should not have setup such a ludicrous system which requires 8% guaranteed returns under any circumstance. It should be based off real current market rates, not 8% or "we soak the taxpayers" with the shortfall.
Go fund your own retirements! Don't screw non-union taxpayers, who are playing by the rules and the free markets.
Ugh.Are we really going to sit and bash teachers again? Borrrrring. How about we start bashing cops and firemen who retire 3/4 pay with 100% health coverage at age 44. Ooh nooo...we can't do that.
Cops work all year round, teachers don't. Cops also generally work longer hours than teachers do.
Oh yeah and they don't get snow days and they have to work holidays.
Teachers educate the future. Some of those cops know how to read and write because if one of them. But that doesn't matter, we live in a society that likes to bash different groups of people depending on what the current topic is. OK then, since it's the teachers turn....Let's talk about Long Island Teachers.....how about this one?Music teacher breaks leg, stays for play
Yes, LI teachers are horrible, they make no positive contributions to society and deserve the bashing. Tthere are a million other issues that need attention but we'll continue to moan and complain about this.
Cops work all year round, teachers don't. Cops also generally work longer hours than teachers do.
Oh yeah and they don't get snow days and they have to work holidays.
I could go on...
Granted...they work all year in all kinds of weather and deal with dangerous situations.But.....should they still be permitted to retire at age 44 with lifetime $0 cost health coverage and an average salary near $100k? Just a thought but since this website has lowered it's standards to teacher bashing I figured why not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
