US Politics: Competence Crisis?

[honeyed chicken]

When you have one political party as committed to disruption as the Republican party currently is and has been for a while now, you are going to have trouble running the government.

[Shryke]

I feel for Illinois public employees, and all employees, public or private, who aren't going to get the pension they were promised. However, what other option is there? If the state doesn't have the money, then it just doesn't have the money. If a private entity can't fund its pensions, it can declare bankruptcy, but states can't do that. New solutions have to be found, and it sucks, but it needs to be done, the state made promises it can't keep. I don't support anyone who tries to demonize public employees over this, as conservatives so often do, since they are not at fault here; but that doesn't change the situation.

Obviously the best solution is to just change what is offered to new employees, and follow that up with optional buyout programs for current employees, but in many cases that doesn't free up enough funding. Some states could raise taxes (although raising taxes to fund pensions is a political non-starter these days), but Illinois already has the 11th highest tax rate in the country.

As for the 20 years, thing here:

I'm not seeing why the only options here are fucking people over. You seem to want to restrict the possibilities to only how they are fucked. (poor states can't fuck them via bankruptcy, woe is them)

Saying the State "doesn't have the money" implies alot of things that aren't established. Because the state most certainly could fund the pensions better via a wide variety of means if they wanted to.

Fucking people over on pensions is also a big deal considering when it hits said people.

[Fez]

I'm not seeing why the only options here are fucking people over. You seem to want to restrict the possibilities to only how they are fucked. (poor states can't fuck them via bankruptcy, woe is them)

Saying the State "doesn't have the money" implies alot of things that aren't established. Because the state most certainly could fund the pensions better via a wide variety of means if they wanted to.

Fucking people over on pensions is also a big deal considering when it hits said people.

Name another option then. And don't say raise taxes, because you know that one isn't going to happen. Also, raising state taxes is a very different proposition than raising federal taxes. For one, they're usually flat, so you hurt the poor more, and for another, they are more likely to have negative effects (capital flight, etc.).

The only other option then is to defund other parts of the government, and, when looking at the breakdown of state funding, the vast majority goes to education, public safety, and Medicaid. Why should the people who benefit from those be fucked over so that public employees aren't fucked over?

[Shryke]

Name another option then. And don't say raise taxes, because you know that one isn't going to happen. Also, raising state taxes is a very different proposition than raising federal taxes. For one, they're usually flat, so you hurt the poor more, and for another, they are more likely to have negative effects (capital flight, etc.).

The only other option then is to defund other parts of the government, and, when looking at the breakdown of state funding, the vast majority goes to education, public safety, and Medicaid. Why should the people who benefit from those be fucked over so that public employees aren't fucked over?

You just named the two obvious ones. Don't act like they aren't options simply because you don't like them or think they probably wouldn't be politically feasible.

You are simply choosing to fuck over pensioners instead of other people here under this argument. Why are pensioners the last priority?

[Fez]

You just named the two obvious ones. Don't act like they aren't options simply because you don't like them or think they probably wouldn't be politically feasible.

You are simply choosing to fuck over pensioners instead of other people here under this argument. Why are pensioners the last priority?

An option is only an option if its feasible, if it isn't then its just a pipe dream.

Therefore, I named one option, fucking over a different group. And honestly, yes, if someone needs to get fucked over, I'd rather it be pensioners than the young or the poor. We already spend so little investing in the future, that cutting what we do provide would be a great way of ensuring that even more of the economy will be outsourced in the future. And Medicaid does so much for so many that cutting it would be unconscionable. Particularly since the way its joint funded, any state cut is actually a double cut since the federal matching funds are also lost.

As for cutting public safety, are you really suggesting that it would be a good idea to defund police and firefighters (yes those are usually locally funded technically, but state transfer funds are usually the originating source)?

Yes, there are things you could do to nibble around the edges, like changing drug laws and closing a few prisons, and I'm all for that. But pensions are a large enough part of the state budget that things like that aren't enough to close the gap.

[Shryke]

An option is only an option if its feasible, if it isn't then its just a pipe dream.

It is feasible though. It's just not politically feasible. It's still a deliberate choice. This entire thing is basically one big example of not wanting to actually pay for shit.

[lokisnow]

police and firefighters are way over compensated anyways, and they rig the system to pay themselves excessive, ridiculous overtime and crap, so yeah, I'd cut them. And the prison guards.

[Fez]

It is feasible though. It's just not politically feasible. It's still a deliberate choice. This entire thing is basically one big example of not wanting to actually pay for shit.

Its not just a question of being politically feasible (although yes, there is that too). There is also the fact that state income and sales taxes are basically flat, and therefore if you raise them you are going to fuck over the poor. In most states, the income tax is completely flat, and in the ones that its not, the graduations are tiny. You could institute a millionaires tax of some sort, and Chicago definitely has plenty of those, but the problem with that sort of tax is that to make it high enough to raise enough revenue to cover something like the pension gap (which in a state like Illinois is massive), many millionaires will have enough incentive to just leave the state and avoid the tax.

That isn't a problem a federal level (it happens so rarely that its no biggie) but the barriers to move across state lines are so small that it can be an issue. Studies show it doesn't happen with the middle class, but millionaires aren't the middle class. They generally have greater knowledge of tax implications (or accountants that do) and more assets at stake.

In plenty of states taxes have been cut so much recently, that yeah, you could raise them again since maybe it would be better if the poor take the hit instead of pensioners (who might very well be quite poor if they don't get their full pension). But, as I linked earlier, Illinois already has the 11th highest tax rates in the country, so I don't think its good policy to raise them again on the poor.

As for other taxes, excise, estate, corporate, etc., they raise very little revenue compared to income and sales taxes and just aren't feasible sources of new revenue.

[Spring Bass]

I'd like to have single-payer health care, too, but it's not politically feasible either - so whining about it doesn't do any good.

In the case of states, the fundamental problem is the balanced budget amendment forcing them to make budget cuts in recession years when tax revenue drops off, but that's not going to get repealed any time soon. So with that constraint in place, we have to make cuts somewhere during recessions, and I'd rather it came from the higher-end pensioners than from education or medicaid.

EDIT: RE:Fez

It's even worse than that, since states actively try to recruit other states' businesses to move there (witness Rick Perry running around trying to get other states' major businesses to move to Texas). If you jack up the taxes in your state, you run the risk of many of your employers running off to places like Texas, especially if you're not California or one of the states with a high-tech corporate cluster.

police and firefighters are way over compensated anyways, and they rig the system to pay themselves excessive, ridiculous overtime and crap, so yeah, I'd cut them. And the prison guards.

Some of it was due to state and local government promising them bigger pensions in the future in lieu of higher pay today (something that they love to do, since it becomes someone else's problem down the road). But a lot of it was definitely due to them pushing for all they could, and playing both sides of the table in negotiations due to their political leverage in elections.

[lokisnow]

and saying something is politically unfeasible is such a fucking stupid tactic, its a retarded concession. You move the fucking conversation by advocating for your side. You probably won't get everything you want, but if you begin by advocating from the middle you get fucking hosed in the end game, ending up with the opposite of what you wanted or ending up with nothing that you wanted. Everyone blames republicans for the dysfunctional government right now--and they deserve a lot of blame for their deliberate sabotage of the governing process--but democrats are responsible for that dysfunction too by never fucking defending a single idea of their own, never advocating for their side and never getting anything done, the government might function better if democrat politician supported their side of the aisle, instead of instantly conceding everything on their side like little cowardly fucks. Democrats never talked about single payer, abandoned the idea post haste and thus we got a retarded conservative healthcare reform. Democrats are so fucking terrified of staking out and defending a position its fucking pathetic, and demonstrably damaging our government.

[Fez]

Not relevant in this case. Most of the Democrats in the Illinois legislature don't want to see taxes raised either. And as I think I laid out pretty clearly it would be bad policy as well for the state.

[Inigima]

Let me chime in on Shryke's side: Pensions are a commitment that was made by the state. Rational decisions were made on the basis that the state would fulfill its commitment. For example, staying with a public employer at lower wage rather than moving to a more lucrative private sector job because the pension makes it more attractive.

You can argue that scrapping pensions is the least bad way to proceed -- though I daresay a lot of people whose retirement planning included pensions might disagree! -- but that doesn't change the fact that the state is breaking its commitment and hurting the people to whom it committed. I am and others are uncomfortable with the cavalier way in which it is being bandied about.

[The Iceman of the North]

Name another option then. And don't say raise taxes, because you know that one isn't going to happen. Also, raising state taxes is a very different proposition than raising federal taxes. For one, they're usually flat, so you hurt the poor more, and for another, they are more likely to have negative effects (capital flight, etc.).

What about the novel notion of not spending pension funds on other stuff?

Having a pension fund that are not protected just seem like an obvious way to scam money from your employees.

[fuseprime]

police and firefighters are way over compensated anyways, and they rig the system to pay themselves excessive, ridiculous overtime and crap, so yeah, I'd cut them. And the prison guards.

You make an excellent point. That kind of nonsense has been happening throughout NJ for years. Here's a more recent story my local paper recently ran:

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2013/07/report_englewood_cliffs_deputy_chief_to_receive_more_than_100k_for_unused_comp_time.html#incart_river

[TerraPrime]

Re: Fez

The raising of taxes does not need to be a default tax on the poor. The proposal endorsed by the vast majority of the big unions includes the installing of a progressive tax structure to replace the flat scale on state income tax. It will, if implemented, provide relief to the people in the lower income brackets even as it increases tax revenue.

Also, the same proposal is making public employees pay more for their promised pension. So we are not trying to make the State hold to its promised compensation solely by raising taxes. The public employees are actually eating the lion's share of the short-fall, all told. We just don't want to be the only one shouldering the responsibility.

[Fez]

Let me chime in on Shryke's side: Pensions are a commitment that was made by the state. Rational decisions were made on the basis that the state would fulfill its commitment. For example, staying with a public employer at lower wage rather than moving to a more lucrative private sector job because the pension makes it more attractive.

You can argue that scrapping pensions is the least bad way to proceed -- though I daresay a lot of people whose retirement planning included pensions might disagree! -- but that doesn't change the fact that the state is breaking its commitment and hurting the people to whom it committed. I am and others are uncomfortable with the cavalier way in which it is being bandied about.

I feel plenty bad about it, but feelings don't change facts. And furthermore, its often a Jamie Lannister situation. If the state has lots of different commitments and doesn't have the funds to cover them all, some are going to get broken. Ideally, states can solve the problem with just changing the benefits for new hires and providing an optional buyout program and never touching pensions of employees already hired. New York, for instance, managed to do just that. But in cases like Illinois or New Jersey, the funding gap is too large. Yes, that's the politicians' fault for not providing the pension trust with the funds they promised, or raiding the funds, but assigning blame isn't a solution. If you want to pass a law confiscating assets of anyone who voted to take funds out of a state pension trust for other purposes, I'd be all for that in the name of fairness, but it won't raise very much revenue.

What about the novel notion of not spending pension funds on other stuff?

Having a pension fund that are not protected just seem like an obvious way to scam money from your employees.

Absolutely. But you can't put the milk back in a broken saucer, or however the metaphor goes. Pension funds should definitely be in a lockbox going forward; but that doesn't solve current insolubility.

ETA:

Re: Fez

The raising of taxes does not need to be a default tax on the poor. The proposal endorsed by the vast majority of the big unions includes the installing of a progressive tax structure to replace the flat scale on state income tax. It will, if implemented, provide relief to the people in the lower income brackets even as it increases tax revenue.

Also, the same proposal is making public employees pay more for their promised pension. So we are not trying to make the State hold to its promised compensation solely by raising taxes. The public employees are actually eating the lion's share of the short-fall, all told. We just don't want to be the only one shouldering the responsibility.

For reasons said before, progressive tax structures at the state level can be tricky policy to enact. I can't possibly comment on the specifics of a proposal I haven't seen, but if a thorough analysis of it shows that its revenue-raising impact won't be negated by side effects, than that sounds great. When possible, progressive taxes are absolutely the way to go.

And I fully support not putting the entire funding gap on public employees, and doing whatever is possible to shrink that gap before having to break commitments to one group or another. I don't want to see people have to work as Walmart greeters in their 70s. I also think any attempt to shrink federal pensions is absurd, since the federal government has tools and factors in their favor that states don't. And I think anyone who wants to cut a pension commitment to fuel a tax cut should be dragged to the lowest depths of hell, genitals first.

I just don't want to see people emulating the stance that some public unions have taken, and I'm not saying Illinois' have, where they refuse any and all changes to pension system. Sometimes, they have to be.

[lokisnow]

Nate Silver breaks down the 2014 Senate races. He gives them a 50/50 shot of taking over the Senate, and North Carolina, where Kay Hagan is running for reelection is 'the tipping point' state that could give them the chamber.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/#more-40702

[Commodore]

CBS News Los Angeles live feed....

Edit: these are demonstrations going on in Los Angeles tonight

[Mad Monkey]

But I think that a good cycle in 2014 will just embolden the rank-and-file of the GOP like it did in 2010 and convince them that their philosophy is sound and that of course the nation will see it their way. Then they push their candidate too far right again, and Clinton crushes them.

Isn't that what happens when they lose? McCain lost the election, so they string Romney along and try to force him to tack hard right only for it not to help... and then you have commentators suggesting that Romney just didn't go far enough and that next time they'll find a true conservative. It sometimes works and sometimes does not -- it seems to be more based on how effective the candidate is at communicating.

[SkynJay]

CBS News Los Angeles live feed....

For those of us who's phones are too slow, what is the feed?