How much welfare is enough?

[Soul Crusher]

In a Welfare State, How Much is 'Enough'?
Townhall.com ^ | June 2, 2010 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2010 7:18:05 AM by Kaslin

The flames from Greece's debt crisis protests have cast new light on the perils of our own overspending and overborrowing. You know the litany. California is imploding. Public sector unions there, and across the country, are swallowing budgets. In California alone, pension costs have gone up 2,000 percent in a decade. At the national level, ObamaCare has done little to fix -- and much to hurt -- America's long-term entitlement mess. Already, America's structural deficit has tripled since 2007. Economist Price Fishback has just published a paper finding that America spends more on social welfare than socialist Sweden (though we spend it differently).

According to USA Today, "paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year," while government benefits rose to a record high. In fact, government employment is becoming a method of redistributing wealth. In 2009, the federal payroll grew and the number of federal jobs paying over $100,000 a year doubled.

The average federal worker earns over 70 percent more than the average private sector worker, writes Arthur Brooks in his new book "The Battle": "To find this acceptable, you must agree that the average federal worker is much more productive or deserving than the average person in the private sector."

Show of hands: Who thinks that's true?

Yet the Democrats want more. More what? More everything. Even as the economy is starting to grow and many experts think we should trim debt and spending, Democrats want yet another stimulus bill, to extend jobless benefits. (They call them "jobs bills" now.) It turns out that all of that talk of a "temporary" stimulus was just that: temporary talk.

Indeed, the mess we have today is merely the natural result of a century-long battle over the size of government. When it comes to the welfare state, liberals want more, conservatives want less. It seems that nobody ever talks about "enough."

Except that's not entirely true. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., offered an alternative vision of government in his famous "Roadmap." It was, in the words of New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, a blueprint for a "conservative welfare state." The idea was that the truly needy would be taken care of because they are truly needy, but middle-class entitlements would be scaled back for two simple reasons: 1) we cannot afford them, and 2) excessive government meddling in areas such as health care increases costs and wastes money.

Ryan's blueprint was denounced by liberals as too stingy and largely ignored by much of the Republican leadership, who were happy to just say "No" to Obama's plans without offering voters anything serious to say "Yes" to.

William Voegeli, a scholar of impeccable conservative credentials, has joined Ryan's battle in his book "Never Enough," a searing indictment of what he calls the Hundred Years' War between the party of more and the party of less. Voegeli argues that American voters (including most Republicans) will never fully eradicate the welfare state because they don't want to. And so conservatives should make peace with the idea that the federal government should help the truly needy, while rejecting both the sorts of middle- and upper-class entitlements that are bankrupting the country and the kind of government "dole" that breeds bad habits among the poor and able-bodied.

Purist libertarians who see merely a surrender to liberalism should at least acknowledge that liberals would denounce any suggestion of means testing America's safety net (as will many voters) as cruel cutbacks and a violation of FDR's "vision." Moreover, the current strategy hasn't worked. We've had a century of nearly uninterrupted growth in the welfare state, even under Ronald Reagan. That alone recommends a new strategy.

Consider Social Security. Liberals are absolutely committed to the idea that everybody should be in the same creaky retirement system. They insist that middle- and upper-class voters must be bribed to support the poor. So Warren Buffett gets a Social Security check to ensure everyone does. In fairness, some liberals also claim that a universal entitlement binds us together as a nation. The former claim is cynical, the latter poetic nonsense.

Governments do not generate wealth; they can merely distribute it. The challenge for both liberals and conservatives is simply to define how much distribution is "enough." What would an acceptable safety net look like? Who should be taken care of by taxpayers and for how long? Paul Ryan offered an answer to that question, and liberals scoffed because they reject the question. There's no such thing as enough, as far as they're concerned. That's what the Greeks thought.

________________________ ____________________

Unless the govt gets serious about tackling our debt and entitlements, a currency crisis and total collapse will take care of our problems. 

[OzmO]

In a Welfare State, How Much is 'Enough'?
Townhall.com ^ | June 2, 2010 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2010 7:18:05 AM by Kaslin

The flames from Greece's debt crisis protests have cast new light on the perils of our own overspending and overborrowing. You know the litany. California is imploding. Public sector unions there, and across the country, are swallowing budgets. In California alone, pension costs have gone up 2,000 percent in a decade. At the national level, ObamaCare has done little to fix -- and much to hurt -- America's long-term entitlement mess. Already, America's structural deficit has tripled since 2007. Economist Price Fishback has just published a paper finding that America spends more on social welfare than socialist Sweden (though we spend it differently).

According to USA Today, "paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year," while government benefits rose to a record high. In fact, government employment is becoming a method of redistributing wealth. In 2009, the federal payroll grew and the number of federal jobs paying over $100,000 a year doubled.

The average federal worker earns over 70 percent more than the average private sector worker, writes Arthur Brooks in his new book "The Battle": "To find this acceptable, you must agree that the average federal worker is much more productive or deserving than the average person in the private sector."

Show of hands: Who thinks that's true?

Yet the Democrats want more. More what? More everything. Even as the economy is starting to grow and many experts think we should trim debt and spending, Democrats want yet another stimulus bill, to extend jobless benefits. (They call them "jobs bills" now.) It turns out that all of that talk of a "temporary" stimulus was just that: temporary talk.

Indeed, the mess we have today is merely the natural result of a century-long battle over the size of government. When it comes to the welfare state, liberals want more, conservatives want less. It seems that nobody ever talks about "enough."

Except that's not entirely true. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., offered an alternative vision of government in his famous "Roadmap." It was, in the words of New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, a blueprint for a "conservative welfare state." The idea was that the truly needy would be taken care of because they are truly needy, but middle-class entitlements would be scaled back for two simple reasons: 1) we cannot afford them, and 2) excessive government meddling in areas such as health care increases costs and wastes money.

Ryan's blueprint was denounced by liberals as too stingy and largely ignored by much of the Republican leadership, who were happy to just say "No" to Obama's plans without offering voters anything serious to say "Yes" to.

William Voegeli, a scholar of impeccable conservative credentials, has joined Ryan's battle in his book "Never Enough," a searing indictment of what he calls the Hundred Years' War between the party of more and the party of less. Voegeli argues that American voters (including most Republicans) will never fully eradicate the welfare state because they don't want to. And so conservatives should make peace with the idea that the federal government should help the truly needy, while rejecting both the sorts of middle- and upper-class entitlements that are bankrupting the country and the kind of government "dole" that breeds bad habits among the poor and able-bodied.

Purist libertarians who see merely a surrender to liberalism should at least acknowledge that liberals would denounce any suggestion of means testing America's safety net (as will many voters) as cruel cutbacks and a violation of FDR's "vision." Moreover, the current strategy hasn't worked. We've had a century of nearly uninterrupted growth in the welfare state, even under Ronald Reagan. That alone recommends a new strategy.

Consider Social Security. Liberals are absolutely committed to the idea that everybody should be in the same creaky retirement system. They insist that middle- and upper-class voters must be bribed to support the poor. So Warren Buffett gets a Social Security check to ensure everyone does. In fairness, some liberals also claim that a universal entitlement binds us together as a nation. The former claim is cynical, the latter poetic nonsense.

Governments do not generate wealth; they can merely distribute it. The challenge for both liberals and conservatives is simply to define how much distribution is "enough." What would an acceptable safety net look like? Who should be taken care of by taxpayers and for how long? Paul Ryan offered an answer to that question, and liberals scoffed because they reject the question. There's no such thing as enough, as far as they're concerned. That's what the Greeks thought.

________________________ ____________________

Unless the govt gets serious about tackling our debt and entitlements, a currency crisis and total collapse will take care of our problems. 

Really?   Or is this some whacked slanted study or blabber from some ultra conservative.  I find that really hard to believe that the average federal worker makes 70% more than the same worker in the private sector.   

 but I'm sure proof is somewhere out there, right? 

[Soul Crusher]

Yes it is true, when you add in benes. 

I'll get you the proof in a bit. 

[Soul Crusher]

USA Today: Average federal employee makes $38,000+ more than private sector worker
www.washingtonexaminer.c om

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
03/05/10 1:25 PM EST


USA Today has been doing some excellent anaysis on the federal workforce. But the headline "Federal pay ahead of private industry" really understates things:

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

But that's just part of the picture. Throw in benefits and you see a huge gap between federal and private pay:

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Throw in benefits, and the average federal worker makes $38,000+ more than the average private sector worker -- the very same one who's ultimately paying his salary.

In December, USA Today  was also responsible for reporting "federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/USA-Today-Average-federal-employee-makes-38000-more-than-private-sector-worker-86633182.html#ixzz0phouCCH1

[Soul Crusher]

For feds, more get 6-figure salaries 
Updated 12/11/2009 12:15 PM |  Comments 1,792  |  Recommend 143  E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |   
PUBLIC GAIN, PRIVATE PAIN 
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

________________________ _________________

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.


PRIVATE INDUSTRY: Some companies restore raises, benefits
JOBS FORECAST: Track job growth across USA
PROS AND CONS: President Obama crafts strategies to create jobs

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.

Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.

The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
 

[OzmO]

Wow, that means the private sector doesn't pay crap.  WTF?

Yes there is something wrong with this picture, but i am not entirely sold on it being that federal workers are paid too much as its more that people in the private sector aren't paid enough.

[Soul Crusher]

How about the taxes are so high on the Federal & State Level for businesses to pay all these government workers that the private sector small and medium sized businesses do not have the money to pay its employees at the same level the federal and state govts pay its' employees?    

[240 is Back]

"a currency crisis and total collapse will take care of our problems. "

For some reason, I suspect 300 million people losing all of their money would lead to more problems.

[Soul Crusher]

"a currency crisis and total collapse will take care of our problems. "

For some reason, I suspect 300 million people losing all of their money would lead to more problems.

Yes it will, but unless we tackle our problems realistically based on real math, we are heading there.

The pie in the sky bs people have come to believe about economics, finance, and taxes is going to result in our demise just like Rome. 

[Fury]

For feds, more get 6-figure salaries 
Updated 12/11/2009 12:15 PM |  Comments 1,792  |  Recommend 143  E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |   
PUBLIC GAIN, PRIVATE PAIN 
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

________________________ _________________

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.


PRIVATE INDUSTRY: Some companies restore raises, benefits
JOBS FORECAST: Track job growth across USA
PROS AND CONS: President Obama crafts strategies to create jobs

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.

Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.

USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.

The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
 

Hi Greece. 

[240 is Back]

i'm well aware it's all monopoly money run by evil guys with calculators.

however, i would rather it stay that way, than have some collapse.

Why?  because it won't be some romantic overthrow of evil.. it'll be power out and sitting around bored for 2 months until china or russia or our own govt decides to print new money (using the same BS tenets of all money systems) and we'll start all over again.  Only this time, we won't have our 401ks, and the new lower value money will mean we're paying back student loans and mortages until we're 70 instead of 50.

I think many of the civil war 2 advocates think it'll be some romantic movie, as good conquesrs evil.  Fact of the matter is, another evil will just take over.  it's the nature and role of govt.  if you disagree, please point out 1 govt/nation in the world where this isn't the case.

[Soul Crusher]

i'm well aware it's all monopoly money run by evil guys with calculators.

however, i would rather it stay that way, than have some collapse.

Why?  because it won't be some romantic overthrow of evil.. it'll be power out and sitting around bored for 2 months until china or russia or our own govt decides to print new money (using the same BS tenets of all money systems) and we'll start all over again.  Only this time, we won't have our 401ks, and the new lower value money will mean we're paying back student loans and mortages until we're 70 instead of 50.

I think many of the civil war 2 advocates think it'll be some romantic movie, as good conquesrs evil.  Fact of the matter is, another evil will just take over.  it's the nature and role of govt.  if you disagree, please point out 1 govt/nation in the world where this isn't the case.

240 - the way things are being run is going to have a collapse.  That's the point I a am making. 

[240 is Back]

see, my opinion is that while yes, it's all bullshit run by silly greedy men with printing presses, and the cogs of capitalism are oiled with the blood of the working man...

It is not going to change.  It's just not.

We can only hope that these evil folks keep finding ways to keep it afloat for the next, say, 70 or 80 years.  At that point, we're earth feed or crapping in diapers, and we won't be affected all that much by it.

Honestly, I am sure that any president would threaten to use force on any nation that drops dollar or calls in debt.  Saddam dropped dollar in 2003, how did that end?  iran almost got the boot, they're getting sanctions.  I think if the world tried to collapse us, we'd empty every silo at every base into the capital cities.  A no-win situation.  So they'll keep us propped up.  That is the only reason we have all those bases, in my opinion. 

And unfortunately, morals out the window, I support the hell out of that, if it's indeed the scenario.  I'd rather be wrong and live in a superpower, than "right", whatever that is, and live in a shithole.

[OzmO]

How about the taxes are so high on the Federal & State Level for businesses to pay all these government workers that the private sector small and medium sized businesses do not have the money to pay its employees at the same level the federal and state govts pay its' employees?    

Interesting, is there a study or data on that, that shows lower business taxes equating to higher salaries that match those int he federal government?

[kcballer]

Interesting, is there a study or data on that, that shows lower business taxes equating to higher salaries that match those int he federal government?

Haha of course there isn't.  There is more than meets the eye here.  Tax decreases do not automatically equal wage increases for lower to middle employees.  In times like these i think it would be almost impossible to find a business that if given a tax decrease would spend it on labor costs rather than shareholder dividends or top level bonuses.  We saw that most recently on wall street they were given tax payer money and what'd they spend it on?  Lower to middle level salaries?  Did the tellers at the banks get a wage raise?  No.  Did the CEO and shareholders?  Damn straight.

[Soul Crusher]

Haha of course there isn't.  There is more than meets the eye here.  Tax decreases do not automatically equal wage increases for lower to middle employees.  In times like these i think it would be almost impossible to find a business that if given a tax decrease would spend it on labor costs rather than shareholder dividends or top level bonuses.  We saw that most recently on wall street they were given tax payer money and what'd they spend it on?  Lower to middle level salaries?  Did the tellers at the banks get a wage raise?  No.  Did the CEO and shareholders?  Damn straight.

3/4 of the businesses in this nation are not fortune 500 companies.  Most are small to mid-sized companies. 

Good try though. 

[drkaje]

Welfare (with benefits) pays way more than minimum wage.

[kcballer]

3/4 of the businesses in this nation are not fortune 500 companies.  Most are small to mid-sized companies. 

Good try though. 

So you're saying they don't react the same way?  Oh Please.  Every good business hopes to create some level of success on par with the big boys.  Business is business the basic principals remain the same and if you're hoping that a tax cut will allow you to employ someone your business is in trouble plain and simple. 

If you aren't in enough demand to afford salary plus benefits without a tax cut or if you aren't confident that once you hire them they won't increase your revenue sufficiently then i have news for you, you can't afford it and it would be a stupid idea to hire someone. 

BTW it's called credit, the govt bailed out the banks so you CAN afford to hire someone if you have the belief doing so will not only pay back any credit floated your way, but also increase your net profit. 

[Soul Crusher]

So you're saying they don't react the same way?  Oh Please.  Every good business hopes to create some level of success on par with the big boys.  Business is business the basic principals remain the same and if you're hoping that a tax cut will allow you to employ someone your business is in trouble plain and simple. 

If you aren't in enough demand to afford salary plus benefits without a tax cut or if you aren't confident that once you hire them they won't increase your revenue sufficiently then i have news for you, you can't afford it and it would be a stupid idea to hire someone. 

BTW it's called credit, the govt bailed out the banks so you CAN afford to hire someone if you have the belief doing so will not only pay back any credit floated your way, but also increase your net profit. 

I dont use a credit line to pay my employees, i use cash flow and accumulated cash reserve it need be.

BTW KC - what business do you run?   

[kcballer]

I dont use a credit line to pay my employees, i use cash flow and accumulated cash reserve it need be.

BTW KC - what business do you run?   

Why not?  Credit is a great way to grow your business without having to wait for reserves or an increase in cash flow.  You gotta spend money to make money.

[Soul Crusher]

Not true.  Absolutely not fucking true! 

I have been in business for 10 years and only borrowed about 3k to start up and never had to tap a credit line since.

If I cant pay my bills off of AR or accumluated cash reserve I am in panic mode. 

Sorry, I dont act like the Fed. Govt. 

I have cash flow, assets, clients, AR coming in, and ZERO DEBT other than a tiny mortgage on the building I own where the office os located.     

[kcballer]

Not true.  Absolutely not fucking true! 

I have been in business for 10 years and only borrowed about 3k to start up and never had to tap a credit line since.

If I cant pay my bills off of AR or accumluated cash reserve I am in panic mode. 

Sorry, I dont act like the Fed. Govt. 

I have cash flow, assets, clients, AR coming in, and ZERO DEBT other than a tiny mortgage on the building I own where the office os located.     

That's a very single minded and somewhat 'depression era' approach.  Kind of foolish if you ask me but to each their own.  I'm not advocating borrowing for the sake of borrowing but to shun cheap and available credit if it gives you an opportunity to increase your business long term is a pretty foolish idea.  Reminds me of old folks who stick to 'high interest bank accounts' as their main investment or worse money under the mattress.  Yeah that'll grow well 

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah, having a building almost paid off, ZERO DEBT, cash flow, clients, AR coming in, a fully funded SEP, and fully funded IRA, cars paid off, assets, etc is irresponsible.       

Thanks for the advise fool!

I could walk away tommorow without an ounce of debt or trouble. 

 

[kcballer]

Yeah, having a building almost paid off, ZERO DEBT, cash flow, clients, AR coming in, a fully funded SEP, and fully funded IRA, cars paid off, assets, etc is irresponsible.       

Thanks for the advise fool!

I could walk away tommorow without an ounce of debt or trouble. 

 

haha who said it was irresponsible?  I said IMO it's foolish to not use credit to grow your business if it will in fact help you grow bigger long term.  It is foolish to enlist credit without a plan.  Way to twist and squirm.  If you want to take an approach of fear go right ahead.  The real money has and always will be made by those who accept risk as part of business and pounce on opportunities that arrive on their door step (like rock bottom lending rates).  Not hide away from them begging the government for a tax break. 

[Soul Crusher]

haha who said it was irresponsible?  I said IMO it's foolish to not use credit to grow your business if it will in fact help you grow bigger long term.  It is foolish to enlist credit without a plan.  Way to twist and squirm.  If you want to take an approach of fear go right ahead.  The real money has and always will be made by those who accept risk as part of business and pounce on opportunities that arrive on their door step (like rock bottom lending rates).  Not hide away from them begging the government for a tax break. 

I abhor debt of all kinds.