RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Robert Reich writes: "This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)



The Shameful Attack on Public Employees

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

06 January 11

 

n 1968, 1,300 sanitation workers in Memphis went on strike. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to support them. That was where he lost his life. Eventually Memphis heard the grievances of its sanitation workers. And in subsequent years millions of public employees across the nation have benefited from the job protections they've earned.

But now the right is going after public employees.

Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don't want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they'd like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.

It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work - sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees - to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican's Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that's too big.

Above all, Republicans don't want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent.

But the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions.

They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts.

The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges - the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.

Compare apples to apples and and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)

Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pensions obligations are out of control.

Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension.

But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous.

And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.

Yes, there's cause for concern about unfunded pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits - better than many private pension plans.

The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.

The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights - Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights - Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana - have small deficits of less than 10 percent.

Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years.

Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well.

But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.

It's only average workers - both in the public and the private sectors - who are being called upon to sacrifice.

This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another - comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits - than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.


Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-69 # Don Gonsalves 2011-01-06 10:08
I like Reich however he is totally out of touch with what is happening in the real world today.I am an independent voter with no ax to grind. I was a former Republican but they have gone too far to the right for me.If you compare job to job, not overall, you will find that public employees cost on average 30/40% more than similar people in private industry when considering pensions,health benefits,holida ys,working hours,vacations etc. Many of these so called educated people are teachers with advanced worthless degrees that do absolutely nothing to improve their primary assignemnt tof education students.They take to worthless couses to obtain much higher pay . I would be very glad to debate this issue with him. Many,many state workers retire very early,game up their pensions by working overtime and accumulating very generous unused sick time and many other gimmicks to obtain pensions that are higher than their actual last compensation.We have tremendous problems in Ct with this problem plus a way under funded pension fund and a non existence Health Fund with a present obligation of $21.1 billion.
 
 
+67 # Beth 2011-01-06 10:49
I have worked in the public sector most of my life. I choose to do so as I wish to be a public servant. I believe that government employees should be the best and the brightest. I have a four year degree and currently make a "huge" salary of $25,000 per year. I have not had a raise in over five years and have no expectation of a raise any time in the near future. I cannot speak to the issues you describe in CT as I live in Florida. I am personally offended at those who are attacking under paid, over worked honorable people choosing to serve the public.
 
 
+16 # Beth 2011-01-06 11:12
I meant to say "I am personally offended by those...", not "...at those..."
 
 
+49 # davidhp 2011-01-06 11:33
As a former public sector worker, I can you your facts are wrong. The benefits that public sector workers earn are deserved. The private sector is way ahead in salaries and lost benefit packages when the corpoate elite moved jobs overseas and busted unions so the robber barons could make more profit. Stating that public sector workers make more that 30% to 40% more than private sector workers is just untrue. Your republican roots are showing and you may call yourself an independent but you buy into the FOX news mentality concerning workers.
 
 
+38 # Don Jones 2011-01-06 12:16
Private companies do not pay for good benefits anymore to increase their profits! I am ashamed to have the same name as you Mr. G, because you are still the prejudiced conservative disguised as an independent. How would you like to be called worthless in your job like you did teachers? When corporations gave good benefits, everbody won, now only people at the top win. How about the gimicks that wall streeters use to justify golden parachutes and big bonuses? Why do you not discuss that? Because you are still the conservative you claim not to be.
 
 
+16 # othermother 2011-01-07 08:43
Don, my favorite sweatshirt has this slogan 'If you can read this, thank a teacher'. It's always a pleasure to wear it and be thanked by teenagers, now that I'm retired and a grandmother.
 
 
-26 # Alturn 2011-01-06 13:05
I have watched public employees consistently lie during testimony when at the benefit of political campaign contributors. One said after one of these instances: "okay, we broke the law. So sue us." So we did on numerous occasions but the judges, who often had ties to the campaign contributors, ignored the law and ruled against the public. A state appellate court judge told me in private that there was enormous pressure to rule against the public or you would be exorcised from 'the club'. An ex-city employee told me again privately how in the department that they worked how the top tier employees would get to do the approval on large products. That person then went on to tell me about specific projects and what that employee had received (new cars, house remodels, even houses) from the developer. The firefighter's union climb in bed with the local power structure (literally - the head of the firefighter's union's wife worked for one of the power structure's sleaziest PR firms) with quid pro quo between firefighters and the power structure obvious. And on, and on, and on but ran out of 'symbols' . . . That is where the lack of faith in public employees comes from.
 
 
+18 # Don Jones 2011-01-06 15:39
And we are supposed to believe you, right. And we are supposed to believe that what you say condemns all public employees, right. The problem is that too many people just believe what people say with no evidence. There is plenty of evidence of the crooked private side, maybe even spoiling the public side, but you only condemn the public side. Right. To be honest you sound like someone that missed out on some contracts and are bitter.
 
 
+14 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-06 21:25
That's interesting. I went to court 57 times on behalf of public employees and won every single time. Why? Because the opposition was crap. Without legal counsel I have successfully argued legal merit for years and most public employees win, not because they are government employees, but because prejudices against them make for poor lawsuits that seldom stand up on merit.
 
 
+6 # othermother 2011-01-07 08:49
Alturn, what you describe sounds to me like a community where the public servants are politically appointed, rather than 1/ graduated from a Civil Service which is professional and detached from politicians, or 2/ directly accountable to the electorate. Don's right: you condemn the bought, but not the buyers. Why?
 
 
+1 # George D 2011-01-06 14:45
I am so tempted to just say "ditto" but then I might be mistaken as a Rush Limbaugh/FOX person; I am definitely not.

But one size doesn't fit all in this formula either. I am often aligned with Reich and others because, even though there are exceptions, the "rule" is often not as depicted.

In California, it sickens me to know teachers, firemen, and police that retire with 90% of their pay, (and 110% if they "work" the system a bit) at the age of 55, while the state goes broke and NO PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS have any such retirement plan. Reich may be painting this issue with a broad brush but there's room for blame to go around here.

I am DONE with Republicans but if the Democrats don't grow a pair and go after the wealthy AND the public leaches, the rest of us will not be served.

Let's see some "compromise" on both issues, shall we?
 
 
+25 # Metcalf 2011-01-06 19:10
Haven't a clue where you got your 'facts' about teacher pensions. You might go to the STRS website and use their calculator to figure a pension. You can check your local district for the salary schedule. A teacher retiring at 55 gets 1.5% X number of years worked for a retirement number. A teacher working 30 years (that means starting at 25) earns a 45% of salary benefit. A teacher earning $70000 (top of schedule in my district) gets $31,500 or $2625 a month. Teachers are not paid for holidays/summer nor do they receive a vacation. They are paid for days worked. Oh yes, this is for California. I can't speak for other states. Wouldn't it be great if all workers received a pension. Wouldn't it be great if all Americans had a reasonable standard of living. I know it must be difficult for teachers these days with one in four American children experiencing 'food insecurity' the repthug word for hunger. Wouldn't it be great if American children did not go to bed hungry and came to school refreshed, fed and ready to learn. This is the America I want to see.
 
 
-8 # George D 2011-01-07 11:43
(Quote name="Metcalf"] Haven't a clue where you got your 'facts' about teacher pensions....... ...

It's quite likely that the formula has recently changed for teacher retirements in California. My information comes from the horse's mouth. I have two friends that are recently retired teachers; A fireman friend/neighbor that retired about five years ago and a Carslbad PD neighbor/friend of a friend that retired last year. ALL of them recieve the amounts I mentioned.
So the question is; Does Social Security at age 62 pay even 45% or do most private sector jobs even offer a pension, or keep people long enough to pay it?
ANSWER? NO!

As for the "summer vacation" issue; WRONG AGAIN. Teachers are paid a SALARY as many professionals in the private sector are, but their SALARY IS A NINE MONTH SCHEDULE not a 50 week schedule. Show me THOSE numbers, why don't you?

It would be so bad but ALL of the folks I know in this category vote REPUBLICAN and decry TAXES!
 
 
+11 # Metcalf 2011-01-07 12:58
Salary is based on 182 working days. When furloughs were in place the daily rate was deducted from salary. Again you might check the official website rather than rely on friends and neighbors. Teachers as you know are not eligible for social security and if they have 40 quarters outside of the teaching profession, their social security is cut by 2/3 of their pension so a $3000 pension is would require substracting $2000 from a social security benefit. Usually that equals zero in social security even after paying into the system with outside employment. I really urge you to do the research yourself. Misinformation keeps us in the dark. All of the public employees you know vote republican? Seems the sample may be really small. Really all of them? Again the answer is not destroying systems that protect people but rather finding ways to protect all of us. The peasant mentality of Images of Limited Good do us no favors in our modern world.
 
 
+16 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-06 21:30
I'm almost with you George, but going after teachers without going after administrators is immoral. Going after firemen and policemen won't work for you. I have never met a 55 year old fireman or cop who wasn't damaged and compared to their suffering, underpaid. being exposed to and damaged by poison gasses, battered by debris, scalded and burned, or if a cop, as mentally battered as they ALL are by 55, I consider them underpaid. They deserve every dime they get and then some.
 
 
-10 # George D 2011-01-07 11:49
Quoting Daniel Fletcher:
I'm almost with you George, but going after teachers without going after administrators is immoral. Going after firemen and policemen won't work for you. I have never met a 55 year old fireman or cop who wasn't damaged and compared to their suffering, underpaid. being exposed to and damaged by poison gasses, battered by debris, scalded and burned, or if a cop, as mentally battered as they ALL are by 55, I consider them underpaid. They deserve every dime they get and then some.


I agree with you Daniel; One does not preclude the other. I'd like to see us going after the puppet masters and not pitted against each other, but I see more government workers; Police, Fire, Teachers, Soldiers; All decrying tax increases FOR ANYONE and voting for Republicans, that the hypocracy kills me. Government workers; SOCIALISTS if there ever was one, crying foul and drinking the purple Kool-Aid about Democrats, Obama and Socialism. It's sickening!

People in the private sector have hazardous jobs too. It's a CHOICE of vocation. "Personal responsibility" is the mantra; Remember?
 
 
+3 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-07 22:07
I do George D, and you're full of it. It may have been my particular government occupation, but I knew of only two out of 1300 employees who were Rethugliecon.
 
 
+8 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-06 21:21
Unfortunately Don, you are naive at best. Everything I got, I deserved and earned the hard way. I worked on average 20 hours of uncompensated over time every single week for close to 30 years and none of that shows in my pension. Over paid? Not true and I have spent most of my career in management evaluating every single year for comparability with the private sector. In every instance I know, privatising government jobs has always been costlier in the end. Yeah, I took an early retirement, by one year, cutting my pension almost in half so I could go to graduate school to take up a government service that will pay me even less than what I was making. Want to trade places with me?
 
 
+6 # Dan 2011-01-07 07:14
How fascinating, a series of anecdotal claims and one fact about pension obligations that Reich discusses and puts in proper context quite clearly in the article. Since the facts above didn't work, how about an anecdotal point to counter yours: do you really think that school bus drivers and teachers are the "haves" in America, and that we need to drag them down? The idea is ludicrous on it's face.And the facts above back it up. Facts 1, Zombies 0.
 
 
+5 # Christine 2011-01-07 20:28
Not true Don. We are taking cuts and furlough days. Kids are missing academic time and the workers are suffering. We are not allowed to work overtime and many of us are not allowed to accrue vacation time anymore. Not all state employees (or any that I know of in my neck of the woods) are getting what you claim. This is class warefare and if the right wingers can get us all to fight each other rather than them, they win. Simple.
 
 
+48 # stanley aronowitz 2011-01-06 10:46
The argument that public employees cost more assumes we must accept the race to the bottom. Why not provide all workers, private and public, with adequate health care, pensions and decent working conditions. The public sector worker is not at all rich; the reason they are often doing better than their private counterparts is due to the weaknesss of private sector unions. For most of the 20th century the roles were reversed. Lets undertake a race to provide all workers with conditions that are enjoyed by workers in other industrially advanced societies.
 
 
+29 # George Koehler 2011-01-06 11:33
Stanley, you hit the nail on the head. It is as Reich so clealry states divide and conquer as we become an impoverished oligarchy. All employees deserve decent wages and benefits fully funded. The only issue I take with public employees is early retirement pensions ginned up in the last year of work.
 
 
-20 # Don Gonsalves 2011-01-06 11:33
Unfortunately most people have not accepted the fact that we live in a competitive world economy. If private industry increases costs then the end result will be even more jobs going overseas and we will end up with even higher unemployment. I agree 100% that CEOs pay is completely out of line and is a disgrace and taxes should be increased on their pay especially Hedge Fund managers that only pay 15% tax rate on their income. However there are not enough CEOs salaries to reduce to offset what you want as far as increased pansions and health care. The world has changed and most of you have not understood the changes. When I was working, I travelled the world and saw first hand the abilities of other countries. They are catching up to us in every way and we have not figured out a way to compete.
 
 
+18 # CTPatriot 2011-01-06 14:01
You're right. We should just pay our workers $1.00/day like they do in China since that's what it takes to be competitive. America needs to wake up just like you have. (/snark)

Did you ever stop and think that the main reason our jobs are going overseas is because of tax breaks and trade agreements like NAFTA? There will always be people in 3rd world countries willing to work for slave wages. The question is whether US trade policies should enable that race to the bottom, and why wingnuts like yourself want to bring back the days of slavery to America.
 
 
+8 # George D 2011-01-06 15:01
[quote name="Don Gonsalves"]Unfo rtunately most people have not accepted the fact that we live in a competitive world economy......

OK; You had me on your side (to some extent) with your earlier post but this one you are out of line on.
American workers may not be "better" workers than those who are overseas, but THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE. That's the whole issue.
People need to be paid A FAIR WAGE no matter where they live and that wage needs to be inline with the circumstances of their environment. It takes more to live in NY than in Missouri so wages reflect that. The same should be true with US versus China, but when jobs are taken from US citizens to pay people in China that are doing just fine on a fraction of our wages, there is no way to compete. Since Americans can't pick up and move to China, we need protections in our laws to level the field. That means import duties and higher taxes on people that benefit from offshore activities and tax breaks for those that don't; The middle class.

Don't give me that "world economy" crap. To compete in anything you need rules that are fair to all.
 
 
+8 # othermother 2011-01-07 09:10
Most of my working life was spent overseas, employed outside the US when there weren't enough jobs for graduates with my degrees in the US. You are right that most Americans do not appreciate the intensity of global competition. But it's no answer to make slaves of American workers so they can enjoy the delights of a North Korean lifestyle. It is difficult for governments to stand up to multinationals. Progressive governments must ally to discipline ruthless corporations with their endless threats to leave for more pliant banana republics and reward them when they are good corporate citizens rather than vandals. It's too bad that this is unlikely to happen.

Kraft Foods bought out the UK chocolate maker Cadbury, promising to retain workers' jobs. It promptly reneged. It also rewarded a spineless British government by moving its tax home offshore. I well understand the need for American workers to be smarter and more educated in order to compete, but you can bet that I don't buy Philly cream cheese or think deregulation will save our skins.
 
 
+5 # Burkey 2011-01-07 19:07
It's not that CEO's should be taxed more. Pay should be more equitable. It's a question of whose hand is in the cookie jar and who has the power.

We'd (salaried or hourly employees) have the power if we got together with our co-workers and demanded something better. It's great to comment here but we have to take the discussion offline and directly to the people who affect our situations.

People seem afraid to do this, at least where I work. Everyone just wants to hang on to their job. The layoffs were brutal. We do have a union, but in the past people have been fired for union activities. The union is not very strong.

Each of us out here on our computers has to get over that fear and just confront the situation together with others who are in the same boat at our own jobs.
 
 
-7 # mark Van Horne 2011-01-06 12:58
That's great theory, but totally impractical. As you lift up the salaries and working conditions of the private sector, you also increase the costs of the products they produce, Americans have already demonstrated they only care about the cost of things, as the sales of Walmart can attest to. It is absolutely ridiculous that public employees pensions are based on the ONE year that the employee made the most money. This means many public employees make more money in retirement than when they were working, This is wrong!
 
 
+10 # bjw 2011-01-06 17:08
I don't know where you are getting your information but it is incorrect. Every plan is a bit different. Most plans take an average of the last 3-5 years of base salary and base the pension on that amount. A formula is used taking years of service into account along with age at retirement. It is taking into account how much was paid in. How can this be wrong? WE paid in 8% of our salary for 30/40/50 years and it was pooled and invested so we would have a pension in old age? How is that wrong? very few people can invest individually and get the kind of yield that wealthy investors can. But by pooling their funds, they do better. This is in place of Social Security. Most have available a plan like a 401k or IRA, but few have anything to put in such funds because they struggle to make ends meet.

The resentment is really misdirected just as Prof. Reich points out. Divide and pit the working people against each other. It's an age old strategy that still works brilliantly as you show in your comments.
 
 
+6 # Cindi Burkey 2011-01-07 19:00
You hit the nail. Unions.

Teachers have arguably the most important job in the country----our future depends on their skill. They deserve better compensation than what they get.
 
 
+29 # mike 2011-01-06 11:05
I disagree with Mr. Gonslaves above. I have a Masters Degree in Education and I earn 1/3 of the pay of my friends with bachelor's degrees in engineering. At $50,000.00, I get by, and I'm not complaining. A good buddy of mine, makes 150k as a plastics engineer and he's not that bright either - love the guy, but he's only sober twice a week and he eeked his way through college. Find me a teacher making that type of money with a bachelors degree.
 
 
+17 # wade 2011-01-06 12:11
It seems Education is always underfunded and undervalued by the corporate-backe d political system. Our public university had to shut down, among other cut-backs, because our Republican governor thought it unnecessary to fund Education. Apparently the Return On Investment timeline is much too long for even a two-term governorship, let along the quarterly horizon of most corporations.
 
 
+3 # othermother 2011-01-07 09:13
'Always' perhaps in America, but not so in the Asian tigers. Investment in education is massive in these countries. But this education is most definitely economically targetted; the humanities suffer, and so does civil society.
 
 
-6 # DRA 2011-01-06 11:56
I largely agree with Reich, but some public sector pensions are too generous, particularly those that approach full-time pay. I just retired after 31 years in the public sector, and now work in the private sector in a job with no benefits. My public pension may be generous by today's shriveling private sector pensions, but it only represents ~40% of my pre-retirement pay. So, I have to continue to work and save for as long as I can. And I expect my retirement medical insurance premiums will soon rise.

Unfunded pension liabilities are a big problem in my state. I don't see any way to avoid cutting some retirement benefits, particularly the abusive options Reich mentions. But I also think average retirement ages need to rise, meaning benefits for early voluntary retirees need to be reduced. Otherwise, the Republicans are dead wrong in their attack on public employees.
 
 
+24 # Joel 2011-01-06 12:08
It's kind of amazing that the public's anger is directed at middle-class public sector employees when the financial industry has salaries averaging $1 million per year and just gave out a record $144 billion in bonuses.
 
 
+12 # bjw 2011-01-06 16:43
When people are fed a raft of false information and they do not have the skills or inclination to verify what they are fed, the propagandists win. Reich's essay is the first I have seen taking on all the misinformation and false notions about the employee pension plans and how they can be fixed.

The most egregious examples of pension abuse should not be put on the shoulders of the average worker who give up a lot to do public service jobs. Those sacrifices continue into retirement.
 
 
+10 # giraffe 2011-01-06 12:39
I WORKED IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR FOR 17 YEARS AT less pay then those in private sector. Then I got my 40 quarters in public sector (but it didn't get me full Social Security benefits) --

Now here's a thought: Congress people work in the public sector but cap their own salaries and benefits through Congress (themselves)

Also, when Cty manager got a great salary as did his assistant. In fact his secretary got more $$ than other secretaries (OK - that dates me)

But to clump ALL public sector personel into ONE PUT is (as you can see) a Paradox.

The Republicans SHOULD be held accountable: Their critisim of job creation is NOW on THEM. They cannot just subtract from people's rights to take a pitance off the national deficit.

I hope they run Palin for President so we can all have a good laugh at the debates because she is dumber than Bush (who had a microphone link to probably Rove sticking out of his jacket during debates)
 
 
-19 # BBFmail 2011-01-06 12:41
It's NOT the Republicans who announced a freeze on the wages of federal employees (unless those employees work for congress members), but OBAMA. It is not Republicans who canceled (for the first time in the history of Social Security) the COLAs for SSI recipients for 2 years..but OBAMA and the Democrats. Lets get these facts straight. The income of SSI recipients is between $!2,000 and $18,000 a year. Any federal employee or Social Security recipient who continues to support Obama and the Democrats is an idiot or suffering from severe brain damage. Obama talks about "sharing the pain", while he and wife continue to spend BILLIONS vacationing more often than any of us...and serving beef at WH parties that cost over $100 a pound, and giving a reported 3 parties a week at the WH..when they are not vacationing somewhere else.
 
 
-7 # andresorgen 2011-01-07 07:30
To BBFmail: How dare you say those sacralegous things about BARAMA? Vacationing on "his Hawaiian ranch," beef for $100 a pound...What else? Do not you understand that it is so petty and trivial? Do not you see that your posting already generated 11 minuses? Do not you ever cross the line! Offer a constructive criticism. Talk about how to help our president.
 
 
+5 # Burkey 2011-01-07 19:35
Billions vacationing, huh? Fox much?
 
 
+9 # Jawbone Grouch 2011-01-06 12:42
Dr Reich
Why in hell would you expect anything other than what these scums of american politicians are doing:

Christ man!
THey TOLD us exactly what they planned to do...a first for politicians of any stripe...too keep finally THIS set of words.

The UPSIDE of all this may show even the Tea Party ignoramuses what they have wrought.

And by their actions shorten the term of our agony; we are just beginning to understand the depth of their depravity.

If Americans DO NOT rise up now you can just stop writing and accept that we are headed for the Christian hell and damnation.

God save me from this form of Christianity.
 
 
+9 # giraffe 2011-01-06 12:44
All my sensible friends/relativ es send me a link to everything Reich publishes - that's how much they think he "does his homework" before publishing. For those of you who disagree with Reich - don't use your "opinions" - get the facts before posting nonesense.

"You ARE entitled to your own opinion but NOT to your own facts"

And that expression should be shouted to Congress - It will certainly clear up the lies they proffer as facts.

BTW, Mr. Reich, my dad, a legal immigrant, did his homework before writing to the editor (back in the 50's and before going to head up the school, fire, and hospital boards. Guess what? They ran in the black while he was in charge. He stopped all those typewriters from walking off campus each summer.
 
 
+6 # photonracer 2011-01-06 13:27
Unfortunately no one has mentioned the huge and undeserved government salaries to the congress persons! They will give themselves a pat on the ass and a raise once again. They learn from big business that they can hire more cronies and get raises if they just fire the "housekeepers", take away the health benefits of the rest and not maintain the infrastructure. When they run out of serfs watch the corporate cannibals feast on each other. Right or Left all the same.
 
 
-15 # andresorgen 2011-01-06 14:53
"But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America?"

We should we include the richest? It is their money. I do not want to count their money. I would rather have them investing their money, putting in banks, spending on whatever luxarious crap they want, which wioll eventually benefit everybody. Any normal person (unless he/she lives in a college bubble) will understand a simple truth: if your riches/private property is secure and not overburdened with draconian taxes, economy will prosper. See, we have a fundamental difference: you view capitalism as unavoidable evil that you need to milk in time of crisis with revolutionary taxes. I, and people like me, view the givernment as unvoidable evil (the less the better).

When you start counting capitalists' money and then overtax them, you might kill your hen that brings you golden eggs, or this hen might move out of the country to "grassier" lands.

Anyway, I am not rich, and I drive a junk car. Even though I am public employee, I am not whining, "It's unfair, they have too much." I guess here I am justing casting pearls...
 
 
+12 # Rara Avis 2011-01-06 14:56
DON GONSALVES: I have a Ph.D. in History and all that coursework I suppose is worthless. I teach...ah history. There is a vast gulf between what I knew as a brand new B.S. degree holder in 1977 with what I know now via all that education. I also have been teaching and molding the minds and characters of young people for 26 years. That counts too. I've learned a lot and applied it to better serve the public. Don: my pension (which is slated to be cut while I have to contribute most of my declining salary to keeping it) is just over half my largest compensation by formula) There is no way in hell I could possibly get my pension to equal my salary let alone exceed it.

If you took any ten of my fellow high school graduates (comparable and male) and they had to be people in the private sector with 26 years of experience, having won awards for their excellence, and would have to have to have a M.B.A. and or a Ph.D. in the field of choice I bet they would earn more than I do. Not complaining. Just look way, way up there and you will find the real chislers.

Brain Worker. Industrial Union 620 Industrial Workers of the World.
 
 
+2 # andresorgen 2011-01-07 05:53
Brain Worker. Industrial Union 620 Industrial Workers of the World.

To the proud industrial woobly "Brain Worker": of course, not all of your coursework is worthless. What I would like from us (you and I, who has 20 years of experience teaching philosophy, political science, and history) is to humble ourselves a bit and remember that what we do is in many respects indulgence at societal expense. Prosperous societies (like US and W. Europe) can afford having us. Countries like Botstwana do not. That is what I always tryo to exlain to my students. As for molding students
minds, I guess it is all right as long as you do not pretend to be an intellectual messiah and do not impose anything on them and give them a chance to choose from alernative viewpoints. For example, if you give them for their readings Marx and Hayek, Cornell West and Thomas Sowell, I am with you, and I am all for this type of molding.
 
 
-6 # andresorgen 2011-01-06 15:23
"Many of these so called educated people are teachers with advanced worthless degrees that do absolutely nothing to improve their primary assignemnt tof education students."
I do not know about public schools, but, as a college teacher, I can fully testify that what you wrote here is absolutely true. Worthless meetings, growing paperwork, various reports, petty bickering, simulating vigorous activities, invention of various agendas to show off social activism. If my job is downsized, society will not only lose but will eventually benefit. In fact, it might help move my ass from a chair to attempt something new and fresh and will stimulate my noodles. May be I will start writing honest books instead of postponing a few interesting projects that I am fraid to initiate in order not to offend my left-liberal colleagues.
 
 
-5 # andresorgen 2011-01-06 15:39
The problem might be deeper: it is not about giving or not giving welfare, touching or not touching public sector. The problem is that we cannot afford anymore maintaining the welfare state as it was designed by FDR, LBJ, Nixon and other big state Dems/Reps.
PROGRAM:
(1) freeze public sector salaries and hirings (Dems sacred cow)
(2) cut public welfare (Dem sacred cow)
(3) cut corporate welfare (Rep sacred cow)
(4) cut military spendings (Rep sacred cow)
(5) flat and simple tax on everybody(13-15%)
Do not be scared, I am just kidding. I am not going to piss against a wind. Just a suggestion from a little man, who quietly sleeps/lives in his college bubble, pretending during a day that he is a multiculti/a bit lib/a bit lefty just to fit in the crowd, but who at night reads Hayek and occasionally does teach-ins for interested folk
 
 
+6 # Carbonman1950 2011-01-07 22:05
Quoting andresorgen:
The problem is that we cannot afford anymore maintaining the welfare state as it was designed by FDR, LBJ, Nixon and other big state Dems/Reps.


I do not agree. Here's why - we could cut close to $100 BILLION from the $664 billion ANNUAL military budget without reducing our security one iota.

Doing so would more than pay for everything else this country needs or wants to do (like making public education as good as it was 40 years ago, repairing our highways, levees & infrastructure generally, developing alternative energy, etc.) AND still reduce the deficit. Just one example of waste, fraud, or abuse in military spending - the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Since 1996 they've spent $3 BILLION trying to make it work. Result it works for 4 HOURS before catastrophic breakdown. By the way the original budget was $9 billion to purchase 1000 vehicles. They've spent one-third of that and have ZERO functional vehicles. Oh! And let's not forget that the military has had NO use for this type of vehicle since Truman was President.
 
 
-2 # andresorgen 2011-01-08 11:35
To Carbonman1950: totally agree with you about what you wrote about the military waste (throwing money into public education is a bit more complicated, simply diverting money current from military to education will not do. How about getting rid of Dept of Education as a start and let communities control schools?). No offence meant, but you remind me a republican, who shouts about downsizing social/welfare spendings, and at the same time, wants to keep and even expand military spendings. The implict logic of your posting is that by simply reducing the military budget we will be able to plug existing holes and happily go to sleep. Unless we come to a realizarion that the mantra we still live by ("big is beautiful") is fundamentally wrong, nothing will change. Although life proves again and again that not only socialist prescriptions (which showed their ultimate failure by 1970s) but also Keynesianism do not allow jump start economy, millions of people still subscribe to these ideas. Classical Marxism explaiend the situation well: when economic foundation for ideas is already gone, ideas still tend to linger on for a while, because culture is fundamentally conservative.
 
 
+4 # Carbonman1950 2011-01-08 22:19
I did not say anything like we SHOULD "plug existing holes & happily go to sleep". I said we COULD. There is a vast difference between the two. I do not believe that government is too big OR too small. I believe that the government is not big enough to provide the services that the people demand and that if they want smaller government they must decide to do without much of what they now get from it, refuse to acknowledge they get, but vociferously refuse to give up. I believe that public moneys are often misdirected & should be redirected. NOT into more tax cuts that feather the already luxuriously upholstered nests of the wealthy, who have for decades shown us that they will not create jobs in this country, but instead into rebuilding the social safety net which for a few decades in the mid-20th Century provided the supportive "bottom" below which Americans who came on hard times knew their country would not allow them and, more importantly, their children to fall and was an essential component in the creation of the greatest period of prosperity this country has ever known. And just to be clear IMO the US has yet to try even a dilute form of "socialist prescription."
 
 
+4 # Carbonman1950 2011-01-08 22:32
As to your suggestion the we get rid of the Dept of Education. I am not absolutely against it, but "local control" is not without risks. Jim Crow has given us ample and irrefutable evidence that locally school administrations will act capriciously and in ways that are destructive, un-American, unconstitutiona l, and frankly immoral. So we cannot go all the way back to that, but I will agree that greater local control could be useful.
As a counterbalance to the human tendency to enact their prejudices and resist their ethical duties, might I suggest that school administrators and boards be personally liable under Federal Law for any breaches of the law or infringements of the Constitution for which they vote or which they allow to continue after they are made aware of them. So... say they enact policies that exclude blue-eyed left-handed people or illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes in the district, those people, the individual people, would be subject to prosecution and if convicted serve time in Federal Prison.
What do you think?
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2011-01-08 11:11
Whoa, cut MILITARY SPENDING?!? That could be up to 50% of the budget, and some wealthy families would be emotionally devastated, and they would feel betrayed by the workers that they exploit. Think what you're suggesting man, think! We can't possibly have wealthy people suffer the pain of losing any amount of income no matter how insignificant and unnecessary to maintain their luxuriant lifestyles! And who would be left to pollute our ground water? and give us unknown carcinogens in our plastic sporks? Think man! Think!
 
 
+2 # othermother 2011-01-08 14:37
Andre, you have to read beyond Hayek.
 
 
+6 # samothrellim 2011-01-06 16:31
So, why isn't the President presenting the case Professor Reich presents so well? Why isn't he on the Obama staff? Where's the President we thought we had elected?
 
 
-1 # andresorgen 2011-01-06 18:06
The President sniffs the air to feel to where the wind is blowing. After all, his job is to enjoy the presidency to a full extent at least for the next two years. I do not think Prof. Reich wants to be now on Omaba team, especially at the time when close team members run away from him.
 
 
+8 # george sebouhian 2011-01-07 00:24
Congratulations to Mr. Reich for becoming a caring cogent voice for the "silent" ordinary citizens.
 
 
+11 # Ken Hall 2011-01-07 06:20
Those who want to siphon any and all moneys out of the middle class are citing bogus, bloated figures to bolster their case to bust public unions and take away pensions, etc. The questions we should all be asking are: Why is the middle class shrinking? Why aren't we all getting living wages, decent pensions, good healthcare? Why are our schools falling apart, libraries closing? Other highly unionized countries are doing quite well, so it's not unions per se. The money, as others here have noted, has gone upstairs. Don't blame public employees, it's Wall St., large corporations, wealthy elites, and the boot-licking pols that serve them. It's time once again for steeply progressive taxation; we should be looking to the megarich to pay their fair share so our kids can have a good education. We should be halving, at least, the so-called "defense" budget so we can afford to invest in infrastructure. There is a vicious class war going on, and the rich have won! Reject the scape-goating of your neighbors and work for the resuscitation of the middle class!
 
 
+10 # genierae 2011-01-07 07:03
Since this American society is deeply flawed, it stands to reason that every work sector, whether public or private, will also have corruption. There's no good or bad sides, and speaking from my own experience, there are always honest employees working alongside dishonest ones. Republicans, at the behest of their corporate owners, want to divide the American people, and set public and private sectors against each other. This will distract us from thinking about the top 2% and their thievery. These rich elites are living proof that capitalism as a top priority, doesn't work. It is only by putting the common good first that we will ever have a just and equal society "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
 
 
+10 # ROP 2011-01-07 10:28
"The public sector is better compensated than the private" - What a crock! I gained my public-sector employment through highly competitive examinations; still, every year my law school surveyed grads' incomes, my salary was in the lowest tenth. Thanks for telling it like (actually, "as") it is, Dr. Reich!
 
 
+3 # Olaf 2011-01-07 12:01
Ah, Mr. Reich -- you are now living in California. Please look at the salary and pensions of your average California PRISON GUARD. In fact, look at ALL employees engaged in enforcing our National Security State (national and local). Sure, the Republicrats want to go after the pensions and pay of teachers (after all, the more ignorant the population, the easier to control) but for anyone who wears a gun for the government the sky is the limit on pay and pension.
 
 
+7 # sewsjill 2011-01-07 12:50
Reich states:
"They'd rather set average working people against one another - comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits - than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate."
After reading all the comments I see that we have proved Riech's quote correct....now lets stop this bickering about who should be getting the crumbs left over from the feast and start working on the real problem........ the flood of money moving ever faster up stream to the top 1%. While we argue against each other they work the system and take more and more.
 
 
+6 # Jeff R 2011-01-07 21:29
This appears to me to be yet another iteration of the the corporatist division of the political right's nearly century long animosity to organized labor (aka unions).

The corporatists have convinced much of the public that any organization that protects workers rights or is capable of bargaining collectively against big... businesses' long-unified, perfectly understandable (given the now wide acceptance of the notion that profits are the only legal and moral obligation of any business) practice of trying to pay the lowest possible wages to their employees is BAD.

Of course, it was powerful unions in the 40s, 50s, & 60s that made it possible for working people to become middle-class; it was the larger middle-class that created the boom economy of the 50s, 60s and early 70s. In turn the neutering of the unions has meant the decline of the American middle-class, and the collapse of the American consumer economy.

Organized labor is not the economic problem. Organized corporate interest is the economic problem.
 
 
0 # andresorgen 2011-01-08 11:39
To Jeff R: How about rephrasing your last sentence in the following way: "Both organized labor and organized corporate interest are our major economic problems."
 
 
+4 # Carbonman1950 2011-01-08 22:39
How about - At this moment organized labor is not the economic problem. At this moment organized corporate interest is the economic problem.

We can wait to see if organized labor is ever again powerful enough to cause an economic problem.
 
 
+4 # Daniel Fletcher 2011-01-09 02:04
Quoting Carbonman1950:
How about - At this moment organized labor is not the economic problem. At this moment organized corporate interest is the economic problem.

We can wait to see if organized labor is ever again powerful enough to cause an economic problem.

Organized labor caused an economic problem...when?
 
 
+2 # Carbonman1950 2011-01-09 11:49
I'm pretty sure it didn't say organized labor had caused an economic problem.

What I said was we'd wait to see if it ever does.
 
 
+3 # Jeff R 2011-01-07 21:33
I really enjoy what this site delivers, but it has a defect or bug that REALLY annoys me.

The little counter telling how many symbols you have left is always wrong.

Example - I just carefully edited my last comment down until the counter said I had 14 symbols left, clicked send, and got a message saying my comment was too long and would not be posted.

Obviously if the counter is wrong, we have no idea what length WILL be posted.

Please fix this
 
 
+3 # Kathy Mc 2011-01-09 14:39
It is unfortunate that in public employees are painted with one brush. There a bad and there are conscience ones. I am a CPS Social Worker who loves her job and actually does this work because I believe that I am making a difference to at least a few people who need help. When we accrue vacation and sickpay it is because we do not take the allowed time off. We cannot receive money instead of taking our sick days, we eventually lose them. Un or underfunded pensions are not the fault of the pensioners, but with management who does not want to tie up their money. I have never heard of not funding executive or management bonuses or high salaries. It is easy to take away the faces of the people who will be the most affected by cutting social programs and lump them into a category. To accuse them of not wanting to work, of not wanting to be better. However, in my experience, many of them do not know how to change things for themselves. It is cheaper to maintain social services than to warehouse even more people in jails or prisons.
 
 
+4 # Kathy Mc 2011-01-09 14:48
I am appalled at the lies and misrepresentati ons that have become the norm in our political system! I went back to school when I was 52 and finished my BA and obtained a Masters in Counseling Psychology. I decided I preferred the directiveness of Social Work and became a Social Worker. I have thousands of dollars of student loan debt but do not regret for an instant my decision to go back to school. I have worked since I was 14 and consider myself a working class person. I work very hard and hold myself personally accountable for doing a good job! Public employees that I work with and for, work at different, individual paces, and for the most part, take pride in their work and understand that they work for the taxpayer.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN