« | »

Obama Wants $50B For State, City Unions

From a cheering New York Times:

Obama Presses for Aid to Cities and States


June 12, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Saturday implored Congress to provide more aid to states and cities to blunt “the devastating economic impact of budget cuts” by local governments that imperil the jobs of teachers, the police, firefighters and other public employees.

In a letter to Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders, Mr. Obama said the “mounting employment crisis” in the states “could set back the pace of our economic recovery.”

Proponents of aid to the states, including some Congressional Democrats, governors and mayors, have been urging the president to weigh in on proposed legislation, initially providing up to $50 billion in assistance, which has been derailed in the House and Senate. Mr. Obama did not endorse a dollar figure, reflecting the fact that Democratic leaders were trying to determine what amount could win enough votes in their party, given Republicans’ near-unanimous opposition.

Nearly five months after Mr. Obama, in his State of the Union address, called for a final round of stimulus spending for local governments and tax cuts and lending programs for small businesses, Congress continues to haggle over several measures to create and save jobs because the economic case for stimulus has collided with lawmakers’ political fears of even higher deficits.

There will never be a “final round of stimulus spending for local governments.” They are part of Mr. Obama’s ‘army,’ and as such, they must be constantly greased for him to stay in power.

As we have noted before, Mr. Obama is a modern day ‘barracks emperor.’

In his letter, the president said state and local governments had already cut 84,000 jobs this year, and would have cut more if not for assistance from the two-year $787 billion recovery act Mr. Obama signed a month after taking office.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone noticed any significant reduction in state and local services? We haven’t either.

Maybe those jobs weren’t so essential, after all.

Unlike the federal government, all but one state and most local governments are required by their laws to balance their annual budgets, and they continue to struggle against the increased costs of relief programs and lost revenues from high unemployment and home foreclosures.

Have property taxes gone down because of the housing crisis? Of course not.

(But whatever happened to the money the states were hauling in during the inflated prices and inflated property taxes of the ‘housing boom’?)

Mr. Obama did not propose to offset the cost of any state aid with savings from other spending cuts or tax increases, as some conservative Democrats and Republicans have demanded.

Or, rather, as his own ‘PAYGO’ law demands.

He reminded the leaders that he has proposed several ways to reduce future spending, including a three-year domestic spending freeze starting in the coming fiscal year.

And by “spending freeze” Mr. Obama means he will freeze everything but spending that goes to his constituents. So entitlements will never be frozen.

But his advisers, and many economists, argue that additional deficit spending is needed to keep the economy from relapsing into recession.

But we thought we were in the middle of a recovery?

Making the economic case for helping the states, Mr. Obama said that if teachers and others are laid off — his education secretary, Arne Duncan, has said that without federal aid, up to 300,000 fewer teachers would be in classrooms this fall — “it will mean more costs helping these Americans look for new work, while their lost paychecks will mean less tax revenues and less demand for the products and services provided by other workers.”

He continued, “That is why the actual cost of saving state and local jobs is likely to be 20 to 40 percent below their budgetary cost.”

Try parsing that sentence from the New York Times.

Look at Mr. Obama’s logic here. If we don’t pay these public sector union jobs with our tax dollars, there will be less tax money coming in from them.

This is voodoo economics with a capital V.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, June 13th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Obama Wants $50B For State, City Unions”

  1. Tater Salad says:

    More money needed to advance the Socialist/Marxist agenda and to keep the voting base happy.

    JAY AMBROSE: The Enormous Cost of Public Unions – RealClearPolitics
    MB Snow | June 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM | Tags: News, Politics, Unions | Categories: Commentary, Politics | URL: http://wp.me/pmX2V-6Zi

    June 11, 2010

    The Enormous Cost of Public Unions

    By Jay Ambrose

    The enemy within. That’s what Robert F. Kennedy called the then corrupt Teamsters union in the title of a 1960 book. Just maybe it’s time to use that phrase again, referring not to one union especially, but to a whole bunch of them, and employing the words in political speeches, debate and commentary as a rallying cry.

    The bunch is those representing public employees. They constitute an extraordinarily powerful special interest that could all but bankrupt any number of local and state governments and vastly increase federal spending.

    Why? So members can live much better on average than those of us in the private sector.

    To get a better idea of how this works, meet Hugo Tassone, a Yonkers police officer who retired three years ago at age 44 earning a salary of $74,000 a year. Now receiving an annual pension of $101,333, he raised the amount to that sum by working scads of overtime in his last year on the job, it’s reported.

    That’s legal, and he defends himself in a front-page, New York Times story by saying that a cop’s work is difficult, that he took on those duties knowing he could retire after 20 years and that inflation will eat into the large amount as he gets older.

    Fair enough from his perspective, but hardly fair to taxpayers in a state that now boasts 3,700 retired public employees with annual pensions paying in excess of $100,000, according to the Times. Wait a minute, though. The left coast beats that.

    A Wall Street Journal opinion piece of some months back notes that in California, where public pension costs have increased by an amazing 2,000 percent over the past decade, there are some 15,000 retired public employees taking in more than $100,000. Other interesting information relayed in the article by Steven Greenhut of the Pacific Research Institute: Some categories of workers can retire at 50 with 90 percent of the final year’s pay on a pension that is inflation-adjusted. And the state’s unfunded pension liability was put at $63.5 billion in a 2008 report.

    via RealClearPolitics – The Enormous Cost of Public Unions.

  2. proreason says:

    What I don’t get is this:

    Private sector workers have to prove their worth every day to keep their jobs. And if the public doesn’t buy their companies’ products, for whatever reason, they can still be laid off.

    Why aren’t public sector workers subject to the same rules?

    This situation is becoming as big a problem as all of the other problems with government spending. In a nutshell, MASSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.

    I know the conventional wisdom is that nothing is safer than a government job……but here is a warning for people who believe that…..it’s going to change in a big way, real soon.

    We will NOT contintue to subsidize the least productive mambers of society. You may think you have enough people to fight for your “rights”. You are wrong.

    All the Moron is doing with this new outrageous payoff to his political sychophants is to highlight the magnitude of the problem. It’s a bullet fired over the bow by a ship that is a helluva lot smaller than the ship the pissed off people of this country are sailing.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:


      Might it have something to do with the paradigm that started somewhere in the 1960’s that it was more important for the kid to feel good about themselves than to achieve a goal worthy of being proud of, thus earning self-esteem?

      We have all encountred the incompetent government worker. We are all astounded by their lack of awareness of a given situation, even when explained in teh simplest of terms. We have all experienced the “supervisor call-over” to explain the problem again.

      Then we are forced to admit that the number one purpose of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate that bureaucracy. Can someone get fired from a government job? Yes, but it is done by means of that person either A) thinking as an individual or B) not “fitting in” with the social/ethnic structure of the department in which they work.

      But you’re right, something has to change. When I go to the DMV, I expect that the person at the counter should KNOW or be able to find out, what the rules are concerning any situation. Granted that the “customer” must endeavor to be reasonable, often times their lack of reasonableness is the direct result of bureaucrat incompetence.

  3. GetBackJack says:

    Using Obama’s logic, I’m going to go to Las Vegas and spend everything my family has. Then, I’m going to go to the Big Window and get more chips to gamble away. And when the chits come due for that debt, I’m going to go to my neighbors and take their houses and bank accounts in order to increase my line of credit with The House and stake everything I’ve taken previously on staying in the same losing Game. Then … when all that fails I’m going to package up some worthless paper, pay some bozo rating agency to mark it AAA paper and sell that to foreign nations and take the paper proceeds to the Big Window and get an even bigger line of credit to keep playing the high stakes games of chance I’m sure will pay off and when all that comes crashing down and I can’t pay anyone anymore out of any revolving merry-go-round of faked accounting … then I’m going to strong arm all my supporters in this Ponzi scheme to come up with vast borrowed sums to pay the people who are depending on my schemes in the rigged game of perpetually losing Ball, Ball Which Cup Has The Ball?


    That’s Presidential, ain’t it?

    • proreason says:

      I’ve finally realized why I can’t stand to listen to this con man.

      Rush was saying it from the beginning, but I didn’t fully understand it…..”it’s not what he says, it’s how he says it”.

      What I now understand, is that no matter how insane what he is saying is….he always says it very calmly, in those professorial terms. It’s like he is patient’y explaining something to his class, which he knows won’t fully understand, but since he’s a great teacher, he works really really hard to say it in a way anyone can understand. And all of the props are there as well. The smokey baritone. The perfect diction. The just-so vocabulary. The occasional folksy grammer, and colloquialism. The refined dress, but not too refined. The slow but expressive use of the hands. The body language. The facial expressions. The chuckle he uses to imply any rebuttal is just simply stupid, without saying the words. The straw men that he so effortlessly knocks down. The references that “everybody” knows. The practiced sincerity. The recognition of his own status. And on and on.

      Al Gore does the same thing, but he is so bulbously obviously conceited that only idiots believe him (and there are plenty of those).

      This trick the Moron uses is specifically designed to appeal to people who feel guilty about race relations in this country, and who are eager to agree with a black person who has the trappings of intelligence and moderation.

      Sample: “My critics are quick to judge me for eating fetuses, but everybody knows that fetuses are an excellent source of nutrition, and study after study has demonstrated…..beyond a shadow of a doubt…..that fetuses have no soul, and contain many special nutiants you simply can’t get anywhere else. So I’ve been holding townhalls all over the country to encourage the eating of fetuses, and frankly, the support I’ve heard is overwhelming. Honestly, If it wasn’t such an obviously moral thing to do, I would never have considered eating a single fetus, because, like everyone, it’s hard to eat the first one. But as someone who has been asked to lead a great country, I had to do it.”

      Interviewer: “But sir, your critics are saying that eating fetuses is a sin against God and mankind. What do you say to that, sir?”

      Obamy: “Heh heh, you know Charles, if I paid attention to every little critique I get, all I would be doing would be flailing around trying to please every fringe group in the country. As the President, I can’t be rebutting every narrow partisan complaint I hear on issues like this, particularly when the benefits to the country are so imperative. So even though I listen to the extremes on both sides, it’s my job to find the middle ground that is best for all of us, and let me tell you, on this topic, nothing is more squarely in the middle of America views, and nothing is better for the health of the country than eating fetuses. And we are beginning to see the polls express exactly what my townhalls have been telling me for the last couple of years. Eating fetuses is good for you, and it’s good for the country. But even so, you know, I respect the extremists who disagree with me and encourage them to keep speaking up. That’s what America is all about.”

  4. pamypo says:

    I guess you think we are going believe it is because you did not know how bad it really was. Biden said we were on track for 4 million jobs this year. Is that with or without this money?

  5. JohnMG says:

    ……”the “mounting employment crisis” in the states “could set back the pace of our economic recovery.” …..”

    Spot on, Pro. In the quote above it all sounds so plausible until someone (anyone) bothers to examine what is being said. This quoted excerpt should cause anyone to conclude that if the economy is indeed recovering, then un-employment should be declining, or conversely, if it is static or on the rise, the economy isn’t recovering at all.

    How about the following; The patient’s high fever and gangrene infection is liable to set his recovery back. If your doctor made a statement like this you’d be asking for his head on a platter. But Obama says things like this all the time, and 50% of the people would vote him back in office as a reward.

    I’d ask “Are these people stupid?”, but the answer is obvious.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »