The New York Times’ Blind Side on Public Employment

Well, the New York Times is finally worried about the real victim class in America. In the face of dismal job growth, they sound the alarm on behalf of beleaguered public workers.

Buried in the relatively positive numbers contained in the November jobs report was some very bad news for those who work in the public sector. There were 20,000 government workers laid off last month, by far the largest drop for any sector of the economy, mostly from states, counties and cities.

That continues a troubling trend that's been building for years, one that has had a particularly harsh effect on black workers. While the private sector has been adding jobs since the end of 2009, more than half a million government positions have been lost since the recession.

In most cases, states and cities had to lay off workers because of declining tax revenues, or reduced federal aid because of Washington's inexplicable decision to focus more on the deficit in the near term than on jobs.

There is a glaring omission in the Times' list of causes. It focuses entirely on declining revenues, as if expenses and especially rising expenses were no part of the accounting.

That bit about focusing "more on the deficit in the near term than on jobs" means, of course, that the Times subscribes to the Krugman school of we are not spending nearly enough trillions that we don't have. The argument is that you can't cut spending during a recession (or depression) without slowing economic growth.

Okay, but isn't the biggest problem for state and municipal governments the fact that expenses are rising precipitously? Isn't one of the biggest causes of that rise the exploding costs of guaranteed benefits for public workers? The answer is obviously yes to both questions, but the Times ignores it.

One could take the Times' argument for stimulus spending during a downturn more seriously if one could possibly believe that they have ever been or ever will be in favor of fiscal responsibility during periods of economic recovery.

The Times reminds me of a joke made at my expense. One day a man visited his friend in Arkansas. It was raining furiously when he entered the modest mountain shack, and he noticed that water was pouring in through a hole in the roof. "Why don't you fix that hole?" he asked his buddy. "Well, I can't fix it now. It's rainin' too hard," came the reply. The next day the sun was shining bright and the visitor said: "why don't we fix that hole?" The Arkansan replied "don't need to. It ain't rainin' no more." The New York Times editorial board is apparently from the Ozarks. Come rain or shine, it is never time to fix the fiscal holes.

Right now, though, the cost of benefits for public employees is everywhere eating into the revenue available to hire or maintain newer workers and to maintain services. The time that we could ignore this is passed.

Comments

[A.I.]

Sounds like the perfect formula for a race to the bottom.

[Ken Blanchard]

In which direction is Greece, A.I.?

[larry kurtz]

You're right this time, Ken: South Dakota has far too many public 'universities;' let's close Northern and transfer you to Minot or Havre.

[Ken Blanchard]

I love you too, Larry.

[Donald Pay]

I don't see you, KB, putting your philosophy and criticism into practice. You are sucking off the government teet, aren't you? Why don't you quit and get a real job, one that doesn't require the taxpayers to pay your retirement, salary and health care? How is that government health care, by the way? Wouldn't society be better off without you contributing to the dire threat that you and your fellow public employees pose to our society? How can you live with yourself knowing that you are taking money away from a job creator and a private sector job away from someone who deserves one? And why not go further, and insist that all of the state taxpayer supported higher education be shuttered, like Governor Janklow did with the Springfield campus. Turn them all into prisons, but privatize them. When you start living your beliefs, that's when I'll take your whining about public employees seriously.

[A.I.]

Greece is a lot east and and some south of here.

Oh, you meant they are racing to the bottom. Maybe, but they have a long way down to go before they reach a level comparable to our relatively meager public and private employee benefits. In fact, comparing us to Greece is not even apples to oranges, it's just plain silly. Beyond their far more substantial social safety net--and this is no small matter--they have a shared currency. And while that has advantages, it also limits their options for dealing with their debt problems.

Your approach to our fiscal problems is much like the Bush administration's (and your, I believe) approach to Iraq: there may be a threat in the future so lets go all in now to solve that perceived problem while ignoring the real problems in the here and now. I cracked my wrist as a child so my doctor applied a cast. Had you been the doctor, I suppose I'd have been given a prescription for an osteoporosis medication.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: whether I am earning my keep or not, I don't get automatic raises. I have had one for three years. I had to pay a hefty portion of my retirement and health benefits from the moment I moved here, back when my salary was negligible and I had two kids to raise. It hurt. The upside is that South Dakota is in relatively sound fiscal shape now. The Economist put us at five from the top in well-funded pension systems. Precisely if you want to hire and properly reward public employees, you have to figure out a way to pay for it. That simple truth bounces off your head like water off a duck's back.

By contrast, a lot of states handed out lavish, guaranteed benefits to their public employees without bothering to properly fund them. I know this doesn't fit well with your hate the rich fantasy, but it is a REAL PROBLEM. Like you, the New York Times simply puts its hands over its eyes.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: that's what I thought. Greece, which may be the straw that broke the Euro's back, is for you a model to emulate. No wonder you like Krugman. Don't worry about the WWII levels of public debt. Spend like drunken, no, insane sailors now. Any reckoning will be in the future.

The trouble is, as Yogi Berra observed, it's getting late early. Says the WaPo: "The national debt will exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy by 2021 — and balloon to nearly 200 percent of GDP within 25 years" according to the CBO. The longer we wait to deal with this, the more painful it will be. We may have already reached the point that public expenses are permanently depressing economic growth. I think we should take this seriously now. One of us is being a fool.

[A.I.]

You are as predictable as the sunrise KB. As I was about to look at your response to my post, it occurred to me that you would probably twist what I said into an endorsement of Greek policies and thus dismiss my post as the rantings of a liberal kook. However, as is so often the case in our little exchanges, I did not say what you contend I said. Nowhere did I say the US should expand its benefits programs to match those of Greece.

My point was that your comparing the US public employee benefit system to that of Greece is unjustified. Their system indeed does appear unsustainable for a number of reasons among which are scale and monetary constraints. And because there are vast differences in the situation faced by Greece and us, I contend that your use of Greece as a bellwether for our future is just plain silly.

If you want to argue I am wrong about that point, fine. But don't be saying I believe we should aspire to be more like Greece.

[Donald Pay]

I care about your personal financial situation about as much as you care about the financial situation of every other public worker but yourself. Stop whining about how much you don't make, and how tough it was to make it, because there are a hell of a lot of people who would take your job with its benefits in a minute. It doesn't have anything to do with this argument that South Dakota has run a good state retirement system. So has Wisconsin, and you will see the Wisconsin retirement system right up there, too. You're a public employee who is getting subsidized government health care and retirement. You are just like any other public employee anywhere else in this country who is sucking off the taxpayer. So, you are the problem, KB.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: I wasn't whining. I was bragging. Wisconsin is relatively sound regarding its public retirement system. Well done. Now the state still has to balance its books. That will be harder in the future. Maybe we public employees who are sucking off the taxpayer can't expect guaranteed benefits that most taxpayers do not enjoy. You are the one defending special status for public employees, not I.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: you and I have been arguing with one another for long enough that neither of us is much surprised by the other says. Still, I learn much from you and I value your participation.

I don't believe I was twisting your words, or at least not much. I read your words "Beyond their far more substantial social safety net--and this is no small matter--" to be an indication of approval. I wasn't wrong, was I?

I predict that when and if anyone in the White House or Congress proposes anything that really addresses our fiscal imbalance, you will oppose it. We will see if I am wrong about that.