The economics professor argues why California voters should ban collective bargaining for public employees.
Lanny Ebenstein wants you to vote to kneecap the state's public workers
unions by banning their right to collective bargaining. Other measures
scrambling to qualify for the November 2012 ballot would drop the hammer
specifically on public employees' pensions or increase their retirement
age, but Ebenstein's may be the most uncompromising. Ebenstein, a
lecturer in economics at UC Santa Barbara, believes that it's too cozy
for unions to be bargaining with bosses they've likely campaigned to
elect -- and the state's economic doldrums are one result. An eight-year
veteran of the Santa Barbara school board and the author of volumes
about conservative economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, he's
now got a metaphorical book he wants to throw at public employee unions.
19 comments:
I am sick of the democrats pretending to care about the poor when the politicians they continue to keep in power screw the poor and middle class. 2008 was really about smacking down the middle class, back to where-Senator Chucky Schumer and his Hedge Fund Buddies, they think, you belong. You don't deserve any wealth, you slaves. Get back to your rented track home. Don't read this if the truth makes you keep your mouth shut and remain in denial.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/08/chuck-schumers-hedge-fund-swindle.html
This seems to be little beyond a hate site...am I wrong? The comment above and the comments in the last few days are just plain frightening. The person above is pretty close to losing it. I am just glad there are no high clock towers in Pacifica.
I have been paying attention to this site for several weeks and find little to recommend it, just a small self-involved group spouting personal invective, mindlessly restating of the same thread bare arguments, ignorance writ large and above all else hatred for those with a different opinion (or who happen to live in Valemar.)
I wish we could all do better. Good buy.
Bye. Have fun looking at pictures of pretty flowers on Riptide.
OK, we have our extremist political wackos sometimes. But what other recent comments do you consider "hate speech?"
Here are some more commie radicals training public workers which include teachers on how to make change. Check it out. Some of you may know her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BARB-aSqYM&feature=share
As far as hate speech goes this site is pretty mild although perhaps too much for our more delicate readers. Not to make nightmares my delicate little flowers, but may I point out we do actually have a clock tower in Rockaway. Kind of short and the clock is probably stopped but you own a watch, right? But not to worry... Not until you see that truck pull up in front loaded with rotten fruit. Please no cracks about the Farmer's Market.
Eat the Rich...slogan seen on signs at the anti-Wall Street protests and now at Occupy Chicago.
"Eat the Rich...slogan seen on signs at the anti-Wall Street.."
Turn that around, the rich have eaten the rest of us and it was a 30+ year tasty meal.
Today you're the diner, tomorrow you're the dinner?
Kathy
You can turn that around also, The rich(CEO,s Business owners) employ people and creat jobs.
The government has catered to them with tax breaks etc.
He with the gold makes the rules.
The ones with the gold, wall street, hedge funds, bankers, etc..have ruled government for a long time now.
"He with the gold makes the rules."
Wealth is super concentrated in the top 1% (who own the paid-for Congress). I know you're not suggesting that is good for democracy and a "fair deal" for the rest of us, Jim (959).
Resulting clinkers: 1)"the USA (financial) rules" (regulations) have been progressively diminished or destroyed (big loop hole gaps) over 30+ years leading to the current financial collapse; 2) tax "rules" have changed, favoring the most wealthy, 3) money shelters have increased, favoring the most wealthy; 4) yet, pensions benefiting the lower and middle-class are irregular through-out the country, including private, and social security (which people cannot get-at until retirement).
Social security (paid for by increased FICA payroll taxes while working) should be increased to pay-out at least to 60% of life income, rather than the current 40%. (Option for an individual to contribute more would be even better). And follow-up cost-of-living increases should also be realistic. I suspected this would encourage more people to pay into the tax/social security system, potentially reducing the need for more welfare in older age.
To the contrary, under guise of "saving social security", Congress is again promoting the delay of social security into even older age, (same as reducing the benefit). Whereas, 1) people may be living longer, but by age 65, 1 of 2 people have a chronic or disabling health conditions; 2) by about age 55 an unstated working age discrimination begins, so employment and changing jobs may be more complicated.
Build-up personal savings? Maybe. Most young people live in denial of older age or disabling concerns: "it won't happen to me!" Followed by middle-age family financial accumulation stability. Then, advanced family concerns: young adult children higher educations, adult children may move back home, aring for aging parents or grand children, disabled family members (1 in 11). Additionally, there is ongoing financial inflation, the need for house maintenance, remodeling or rent increases, bad investments, work termination, other family life changes such as divorce, disability or even death, etc. Life happens, wealth may or may not.
Thus, Anon (10/25, 1135pm), makes an interesting evolutionary point for other animals and humans: being "dinner" is what we and our elected government, representing us (acting on our behalf), should work to avoid. Some people call this "adverse risk management planning": the "nanny" State, until they themselves need the "nanny" of course. And, most of our population continues to need better underlying social benefit security. Some people call this human "need-centered planning": "socialism"-- until, without alternatives, they also need and accept these social benefits.
Most civilized countries enjoy a combination of both social benefit planning and services, such as health care, shelter when needed, and paid-into pensions-- plus a capitalistic economic structure. So does the USA, but there is substantial need for improvement. Meantime, those who work against their own best interest and that of others are of interest. Just my observed opinion; similar to you, I don't "rule".
He who has the gold makes the rules. Certainly that seems to be the way of the world but how sad that it has nothing in common with the real Golden Rule. There are limits to everything. How far will the pendulum swing before we start over?
I don't see any of you wasters occupying Pacifica just yet?
In the very challenging early 1930s I think Churchill said, more or less, that a young man must be a liberal or he has no heart and an old man must be a conservative or he has no mind. Watching that play out in my own time I'd observe that one of the dangers of making that journey is that so many lose their humanity in transit.
Wake up! Pacifica's been occupied by wasters for years.
Man us wasters have a good life man. wake up get stoned..hang out surf get stoned go home sleep, look for check in mail box. get stoned go to sleep look around for something to eat. hang out get stoned again.
repeat the same day after day..
Oh, you mean that kind of waster.
Stoners never hurt nobody.
He who is without sin, cast the first stoner.
Post a Comment