Let’s see, we have run a deficit of over a trillion dollars every year that Barack Hussein Obama has been our President, and if the Congress doesn’t agree to do something about the upcoming “fiscal cliff,” federal spending will be reduced by roughly $300 billion for FY 2013, sowhat better time for federal government workers to demand raises!
November 10, 2012 | By Lonely Conservative
Now that President Obama has a second term to look forward to federal workers already have their hands out. They want pay raises.
With President Obama safely re-elected to a second term, federal workers feel comfortable to make their demands known. As debate rages over lowering the federal deficit, they want a pay raise. As CNN’s Money magazine reports:
Union president Colleen M.] Kelley said her No. 1 issue right now is getting federal worker salaries unfrozen on Jan. 1, even if that means working out a deal later in the year and making pay hikes retroactive to Jan. 1.
In the midst of that, federal workers are also nervous about the fiscal cliff , which includes $1.2 trillion worth of spending cuts over a decade if Congress fails to act by Jan. 1. Some 277,000 workers — 14% of the federal work force — could lose their jobs in the next 12 months if the U.S. cannot avoid the cliff, according to a study by the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University. (Read More)
Boy, that right there makes going over the fiscal cliff tempting, doesn’t it? 14% of federal workers gone, just like that?
Heck, we’d all like a raise, but, according to CBO figures, federal government workers are already compensated better than American workers in the private sector. It’s somewhat difficult to argue that federal employees should be getting paid more when the taxpayers who support them are being paid less.
Donald Douglas notes the sad state of affairs in the Pyrite State:
I joked around earlier about the how California’s the preview of a Democrat partisan realignment in — and it ain’t pretty. The Wall Street Journal lays out the case against unfettered blue-state radicalism, “California’s Liberal Supermajority“:
For Republicans unhappy with Tuesday’s election, we have good news—at least most of you don’t live in California. Not only did Democrats there win voter approval to raise the top tax rate to 13.3%, but they also received a huge surprise—a legislative supermajority. Look out below.
The main check on Sacramento excess has been a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority of both houses to raise taxes. Although Republicans have been in the minority for four decades, they could impose a modicum of spending restraint by blocking tax increases. If Democratic leads stick in two races where ballots are still being counted, liberals will pick up enough seats to secure a supermajority. Governor Jerry Brown then will be the only chaperone for the Liberals Gone Wild video that is Sacramento….
So now Californians will experience the joys of one-party, union-run progressive governance. Mr. Brown is urging lawmakers to demonstrate frugality and the “prudence of Joseph.” As he said the other day, “we’ve got to make sure over the next few years that we pay our bills, we invest in the right programs, but we don’t go on any spending binges.” That’s what all Governors say. Trouble is, merely paying the state’s delinquent bills will require tens of billions in additional revenues if lawmakers don’t undertake fiscal reforms.
The silver lining here is that Americans will be able to see the modern liberal-union state in all its raw ambition. The Sacramento political class thinks it can tax and regulate the private economy endlessly without consequence. As a political experiment it all should be instructive, and at least Californians can still escape to Nevada or Idaho.
The state of your Editor’s birth had been hemorrhaging corporations and jobs and productive people even before the election. Substantially raising taxes on the most productive people will have the marginal effect of encouraging more of them who are able to leave, to leave.
California and Texas are home to 20 percent of America. These two states have a lot in common: long coasts, sunny climates, diverse populations, plenty of oil in the ground, and Mexico to the south. Where they diverge is in their governance.
For six years ending in 2010, I represented almost 500,000 people in California’s legislature. I was vice chairman of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation and served on the Budget Committee. I was even a lieutenant colonel in the state’s National Guard. Before serving in Sacramento, I worked as an executive in California’s aerospace industry.
I moved to Texas late last year, joining the millions Californians of who have packed up for greener pastures in the past ten years, with Texas the most common destination.
In his State-of-the-State address last January, Governor Jerry Brown said, “Contrary to those declinists who sing of Texas and bemoan our woes, California is still the land of dreams. . .” California may be dreaming, but Texas is working.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2000 to 2010, California lost a net of 519,600 jobs while Texas gained 1,093,600 jobs. This fueled a net domestic outmigration of middle class families from California, with almost two million more Americans moving out of California than moving in. Meanwhile, Texas saw a net gain of 781,542 from domestic migration, with about 1,000 people per day moving into the state in 2009.
Texas added 27,900 jobs in March (2012). The official unemployment rate in Texas is 7.1% compared to 8.3% nationally. California added 4,000 jobs and has an official unemployment rate of 10.9%.
A thousand people a day, moving to the Lone Star State. A net out-migration of two million people from the Pyrite State; it doesn’t matter how high the Democrats raise taxes in California, they’ll still have a huge deficit, because the more they raise taxes, the more people who pay taxes will decide to pay taxes elsewhere.
Phineas wrote on the California tax increase, from a different angle:
Posted by: Phineas on November 9, 2012 at 1:44 pm
And it worked:
Cal State to consider new student fees
California State University is seeking to impose a series of new fees next fall designed to encourage students to graduate faster and free up thousands of more classroom seats.
The proposals were unveiled Thursday, only two days after the passage of Proposition 30, a tax measure that allowed the university to rescind a $249 per semester tuition increase that took effect in the fall. Voter approval of the tax measure means the university will avoid an additional $250-million mid-year funding cut.
But officials said the new fees are designed not primarily to generate revenue but to change student behaviors that have clogged the pathway to degrees and delayed new admissions, problems that have only been exacerbated by budget cuts.
Proposition 30 was sold to the voters as the only way to save our schools and university from crippling budget cuts (1), and so the already over-taxed California voters agreed to “temporary” income and sales tax increases to fend them off. But –and, O! What a shock it is!– Cal State says that won’t be enough and they need to raise fees on students. Just as they threatened to do without a tax increase!
Like I said, the given reasons for the new fees are horse manure. If they have so-called super-seniors hanging around taking way more units than they need to graduate, then enforce the limits on units and automatically graduate them. Congratulations, here’s your diploma, now go away. Problem solved.
Too many people retaking classes? Ban the practice, or maybe let them do it once if they received a D or lower, and that’s all. In other words, you have rules to control the problem, enforce them. You don’t have the rules? Make them.
But don’t say you’re going to raise fees two days after getting the tax increase you asked for to avoid raising fees.
It wasn’t only California voters who were played for suckers; there were sixty million fools around our country who voted against their own jobs, against their own interests.
OK, that’s not quite right: not all of President Obama’s sixty million voters actually had jobs; many of them were the welfare malingerers. For them, voting to re-elect the President of Free Stuff was a perfectly sensible thing to do. Mitt Romney’s 47% comment was exactly on target: when you receive benefits from federal taxes, but pay no federal taxes yourself, of course you want to retain the system which gives you something for nothing. It will all work splendidly, right up until it doesn’t.