What Oklahoma knows, but Obama doesn’t: Protect public-sector jobs, imperil the employment rate

posted at 9:31 am on September 8, 2012 by Tina Korbe

To most Americans, a job is a job is a job — but, in the quest to generate employment for the more than 12 million Americans currently out of work, statists betray a prejudice in favor of public-sector jobs, while free-marketeers betray a prejudice in favor of private-sector jobs. That is, a private-sector job seems barely a job to the statist, while a public-sector job seems barely a job to the free-marketeer.

To big-government advocates, growth in the public sector is essential to lowering the unemployment rate — and it apparently need not come at the expense of the private sector. The government can somehow provide stimulus funds for local and state governments without having to take anything whatsoever from the private sector.

Unfortunately, the idea that the government can “create” jobs is no less a myth than the equally potent idea that the government can “create” wealth. In fact, the government can do neither. The best the government can do is expropriate wealth from the private sector and redistribute it — sometimes in the form of jobs, sometimes in the form of services. Private taxpayers — or other of America’s creditors — inevitably must finance the salaries of public workers.

It’s too neat a formula to say, “Expanding the public sector by a job shrinks the private sector by a job,” but it’s not too neat to say, “Expanding the public sector by a job removes resources from the private sector, which likely would employ those resources more effectively than the public sector.”

Government bureaucracies are famously inefficient, not just in terms of the number of people they employ to do work that could be done by fewer, but also in terms of the pay they provide workers and the security they often unwarrantedly offer employees.

None of this is to suggest public-sector employees are somehow lazier than private-sector employees. In reality, government employees are highly rational economic creatures who make decisions based on the incentives. Vaunted as “public servants,” they’re as self-interested as any of us. Why not opt for a notably high-paying job or an exceptionally secure one or a tranquilly cushy one or a job that’s some combination of the three?

It is to suggest that the public sector makes poorer use of capital than the private sector. Denied by statists but nevertheless true, job destruction is just as vital to the overall growth of the economy as job creation. It’s not just that government is incapable of creating jobs; it’s also notoriously bad at eliminating obsolete jobs within the public sector. When the automobile came into vogue, the job prospects for horse-shoers and saddle-makers dwindled. Hardly anyone today would argue that that was to the detriment of the economy as a whole. If the government ran the transportation industry, though, horse-shoers and saddle-makers might not have lost their jobs. Neither, though, would the economy have gained as many jobs as it did through the automobile industry.

As counterintuitive as it might seem, cutting jobs can actually be good for the overall employment outlook of a place — particularly when those jobs come from the public sector and the resources needed to sustain them can be returned to the private sector. For proof of this, we need look no further than the example of the state of Oklahoma.

In an editorial this week, the board of The Oklahoman writes:

Oklahoma state government has slashed the number of its full-time workers by more than 2,000 and reduced monthly payroll by $4.2 million. Yet Oklahoma’s July unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, among the lowest in the nation. …

Those statistics must bewilder Obama. Much of his focus in office has been on boosting the number of government employees and protecting their jobs rather than unleashing the private economy. A huge share of stimulus money sent to the states was to prevent state worker layoffs, yet the national unemployment rate remains above 8 percent. On the other hand, Obama’s tax and regulatory policies hinder private business growth and job creation.

Oklahoma policymakers responded to the recession by right-sizing government and reducing the burden on the private sector. The results suggest that economic approach is superior to Obama’s theories.

At the same time, while Obama could certainly learn from Oklahoma, the state still has too many government employees. Additional, thoughtful, intentional “right-sizing” still needs to occur.

As The Heritage Foundation’s Bill Beach explains, the feeble recovery that has followed the Great Recession on the national scale has been a “case of the missing job generator.”

Entrepreneurs, not government bureaucrats, have been the authors of past economic recoveries. Lawmakers typically have reduced tax and regulatory burdens to facilitate the entrepreneurial process. The sharp recovery from the awful recession of the early 1980s is a key example of these doctors at work.

While millions of Americans intuitively understand the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship to our economic well-being, this understanding does not run very deep in Washington. Nowhere else in this country will you find as many people who believe that government creates jobs and that innovation automatically occurs once government cuts a subsidy check.

When the latest recession struck, Washington decided not to enlist the army of innovators and entrepreneurs to lead us back to prosperity by making their economic lives easier. Instead, policymakers embraced a more than $1 trillion government-directed economic stimulus program.

If Oklahoma wants to continue to enjoy a low unemployment rate — and if the national administration seriously wants to energize the economy, lawmakers at every level of government would be wise to continue to develop policies with primarily private-sector job creation — i.e. entrepreneurship — in mind.

Tina Korbe is policy impact director at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Previously, she was associate editor at HotAir.com and a staff writer at The Heritage Foundation. This post was originally published at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs blog, InterAlia.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good job Tina!!

txmomof6 on September 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

What Oklahoma knows, but Obama doesn’t: Protect public-sector jobs, imperil the employment rate

You assume Obama doesn’t know this, I on the other had assume that he does. To date it appears that Obama is following the Cloward-Pivens Strategy. It was no accident that the DNC proudly proclaimed that we all belong to the Government, they are Marxists, that is a central ideological principal of Marxism.

SWalker on September 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Tina, that’s an outstanding article.

Oh and…You’re doing fine Oklahoma, Oklahoma OK!

CorporatePiggy on September 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Obama knows what is going on…..

But creating the conditions for private-sector growth puts a kibosh on his statist plans.

Obama and the progressives intent is to grow the state to the point where the private sector
is smothered and will die.

When Obama talks about jobs he means “government jobs”.

Look the progressives intent is to take over and control the whole of industry and the service sectors.

Forget taxes – they want the whole loaf…..

If their feeble minds they should have the whole loaf to distribute the way THEY see it.

You see – just getting crumbs from the capitalist loaf to spread around is not enough.

redguy on September 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

So, if Obama really wants to get re-elected he should fire everyone in the IRS, ATF, DEA, EPA and all postal employees. That would drop the unemployment rate to .5% just in time for the November elections and getting rid of the IRS alone would get him enough votes to stay in office for the next 20 years.

Oldnuke on September 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

What Oklahoma knows, but Obama doesn’t: Protect public-sector jobs, imperil the employment rate

You assume Obama doesn’t know this, I on the other had assume that he does. To date it appears that Obama is following the Cloward-Pivens Strategy. It was no accident that the DNC proudly proclaimed that we all belong to the Government, they are Marxists, that is a central ideological principal of Marxism.

SWalker on September 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Agreed. In other countries they call it the Worker’s Party. You work for the government and you VOTE for the government that put you there. All by design.

msupertas on September 8, 2012 at 9:46 AM

I’m reminded of a story about job retraining, where unionized workers who lost their $30/hr jobs were targeting for retraining so that they could replace that income. When they started working with them, the ‘re-trainers’ discovered that the job the workers had been doing for that wage consisted of loading a machine with blanks and pushing a button to operate the press. That was how they were taught to do the job and they expected the company to last forever. The re-training was a failure because try as they may, there were simply no jobs available where the reward was so high for such little value of work. Things had changed and the company either couldn’t keep up and went out of business, or changed their approach and policies including outsourcing labor and mfg in order to survive.

Obama is in much the same boat here. He’s got people telling him that all he has to do is load the machine (economy) with raw material (stimulus) and push the button, but things have changed and he’s at a loss as to why this (supposedly) tried and true formula is failing. He refuses to accept that his signature healthcare bill is a sham and a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of employers who are trying to do what they can to survive his economic learning curve.

A town, city or ‘community’ if you prefer can only support the number of public sector workers it can afford. Ideally because it’s economically healthy enough to afford them. That’s why some towns have volunteer Fire depts. Good teachers can add value sure, but very few if any public school staffed with all top shelf teachers. People’s mobility has been affected by the housing bubble collapsing prices and leaving them underwater. People vote with their wallets and their feet. When they feel stranded, expect the wallet vote to become that much more important.

Sorry for the length of this post. I’m pre-coffee. Time to fix that.

CitizenEgg on September 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM

turfmann’s first theorum of political economics:

Whatever Obama advocates, do the exact opposite.

It is telling that in a state like North Dakota (yes, it is one of the 57 states) the economy is booming because of wealth creation via extraction of natural resources.

Meanwhile, we have a president that will not allow American companies to drill in the gulf for environmental reasons, yet sees no problem giving taxpayer money, borrowed from overseas, to other nations so that they can do the exact same thing, just a not within our jurisdiction.

The mind boggles.

turfmann on September 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

To Obama the only good job is a government job.

albill on September 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM

This is why I hate when conservatives argue that the defense budget is somehow a jobs program. Defense is a necessary evil and one of the few Constitutional functions of the federal government. Period.

I heard a CA Assemblywoman on the radio trying to attack the Dems for closing an airbase… because it meant a loss of jobs. Sorry, but we don’t create airbases to generate civil employment.

Here in NC, the NCGOP got all over our dimwitted Democrat governor when she cancelled an order for new school buses (made in state). “We need the jobs!”. Groan. The government does not exist to create fake jobs by stealing from the private sector!

mankai on September 8, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Reminds me of Granholm’s ludicrous speech at the Dim convention, flailing her arms and screeching about how Obama single-handedly “saved” thousands of jobs in the auto industry with his magnificent bailout.

What does that stupid woman think would have happened if GM and Chrysler had gone through a managed bankruptcy, instead of having Obama loot the treasury on behalf of the UAW? Does she think that GM and Chrysler would have suddenly disappeared from the earth in a puff of smoke, taking all their jobs with them? Those jobs that Obama so heroically “saved” still would have existed if GM and Chrysler had gone through a managed bankruptcy — only the UAW members who held those jobs would have been required to accept salary and benefits packages that were more in line with what workers at other U.S. auto-manufacturers make.

But no, Obama wasn’t going to ask his overpaid union buddies to make any sacrifices. Obama, in his infinite wisdom, decided it was preferable to ignore the law (and common sense and fair play) and hand the UAW tens of billions of taxpayer dollars so they could continue to receive their bloated, uncompetitive salaries and pensions. In Obamaland, sacrifice is something other people should be required to make — people like GM bondholders, Republican-owned GM dealerships, non-union Delphi workers and retirees, and of course, U.S. taxpayers (all of whom were royally screwed over by Obama’s “heroic” bailout of GM and the now foreign-owned Chrysler).

I really hope Mitt Romney has some commercials coming out in the next couple of months that will explain to the American people what a huge, and hugely unnecessary, rip-off the auto bailout was. I’m so sick of hearing this ludicrous myth about how Obama “saved” the U.S. auto industry. The only thing Obama saved was the bloated union salaries and pensions of the UAW — and he did it at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers.

AZCoyote on September 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

The only thing Obama saved was the bloated union salaries and pensions of the UAW — and he did it at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers.

AZCoyote on September 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

And GM still cannot make a car worth a shit…..

redguy on September 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

AZCoyote on September 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

+10

And anybody can “save or create” jobs by borrowing money or taking it from someone else.

If I borrow $100K on my credit card and then put a gun to my neighbor’s head for $50K more, I can hire a maid, a butler and a chauffeur… temporarily. My neighbor will have had to fire his maid and in a year’s time, when the loan and interest come due, I’ll have to fire my butler and chauffeur and give my maid a pay cut (which will reduce her contribution to the economy as well).

Idiot Leftists are so simple-minded. They just don’t understand how real wealth is created and spread… naturally.

mankai on September 8, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Wouldn’t this be a sooper country if half the citizens don’t pay taxes and the other half work for the government? . . ./s

BigAlSouth on September 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I’m pre-coffee. Time to fix that.

CitizenEgg on September 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM

This was pre-coffee? I look forward to the follow-up.

Fallon on September 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Great article, I’ll have to pass this one on.

franciscodanconia on September 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Good one, Tina!

I’d really like to see this idea developed further:

As counterintuitive as it might seem, cutting jobs can actually be good for the overall employment outlook of a place — particularly when those jobs come from the public sector and the resources needed to sustain them can be returned to the private sector.

petefrt on September 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

What Oklahoma knows, but Obama doesn’t: Protect public-sector jobs, imperil the employment rate

posted at 9:31 am on September 8, 2012 by Tina Korbe

…(I have to contribute to the Republican chauvinistic war on wimmenz)…BOTH…good pieces! (:->)

KOOLAID2 on September 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Great article Tina, but…
you left the private sector for a secure public sector job?

I encouraged both my kids to do the same thing in this current economy.

barnone on September 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Well, I’m back for a litle bit, until the postings start getting inane or thuggish. Tina does a good job here (speaking as a fellow OKIE). However, this is being done in many parts of the country at the local level. Does anybody see the local governors and legislators getting credit for this? No! This little bit just helps Obama look better, but, I tell you now, HE DIDN’T DO IT! When you see his “good” lying jobs numbers, they aren’t his. They belong to the individual states that are trying to control their own destinies.

Old Country Boy on September 8, 2012 at 10:33 AM

The private sector has incentives to become more efficient, utilize resources better so as to garner a higher profit.

Government has the incentive to expand bureaucracy, add overhead for ‘oversight’ and then seek to justify expansion of power so that more people can be employed in the fiefdoms within the bureaucracy.

Congress PUNISHES government agencies that have a surplus and hand it back to the Treasury.

Congress REWARDS government agencies that run up a deficit and expend all of their funds for anything, necessary or not to their mission.

The system of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS in government are not set up to run like a private sector endeavor. Government is not about expanding liberty, but taking wealth from those who create it so as to expand authority and bureaucracy to gain more power. The moment the people start to reward the restriction of government, thriftiness, and handing power to the people to do for themselves in a creative and profitable way, then government will get smaller as those with the scissors will start cutting apart what those with the red tape and glue have put together.

ajacksonian on September 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Welcome back, Tina.

I love my state.

But the battle is here, too. Somebody I knew, from my law school days – ’80 to ’83 – is running for our House, in a District that defines both it, and her:

She’s a lesbian and a hard-core Socialist.

Neither of which was apparent, back in the day.

It’ll be a sad day for Oklahoma; because she’s going to win. The people who comprise her District will make that outcome, inescapable.

OhEssYouCowboys on September 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Sorry for the length of this post. I’m pre-coffee. Time to fix that.

CitizenEgg on September 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Good Lord, if that’s what you write pre-coffee, please let me buy you a pound or two for you to brew up. Marvelous.

rah1420 on September 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Personally I could care less weather Obama knows this or not.

What I care is that the Electoriate comes to know this.

“America can withstand four more years of Obama, America is resoursful and innovative. What America cannot withstand is an Electoriate that would re-elect an Obama.”
…Rush Limbaugh.

jaydee_007 on September 8, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Government bureaucracies are famously inefficient, …

An esoteric example of this: Back in the mid-80′s, the DoD sponsored a program called VHSIC (Very High Speed Integrated Circuits), this was a program that pushed the current state of the art to produce IC components that were faster than the fastest existing processors to support DoD programs. The program had identified modular components and contractors were given information on those components to start incorporating them into future DoD designs. The information was not quite classified, but restricted in dissemination — people who received the specification books were told to hold those books closely. The program never got off the ground. The magical high speed components, touted to be ready for production in “a few years” were outstripped in speed and capability by the private sector well before those components could be developed and readied for production. Now, in fairness, the operational environment requirements for VHSIC were more stringent, but the government program oversight and contracting requirements also led to the inability to develop these components before the private sector raced past them.

AZfederalist on September 8, 2012 at 10:49 AM

AZfederalist on September 8, 2012 at 10:49 AM

If Government Bureaucracies had been in charge of the replacement of the Horse and Buggy the Automobile whould have been powered by Steam rather than the Internal Combustion Engine.

jaydee_007 on September 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Okiehoma and states like Texas and Utah will have their free markets finished off if Obama wins.

Once the UNIONIZED OBAMACARE millions get their jobs and they control every aspect of our lives, these states will all become part of the collective Federal superstate.

Then WHO will be able to “cut” any service or government job?

PappyD61 on September 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM

To big-government advocates, growth in the public sector is essential to lowering the unemployment rate — and it apparently need not come at the expense of the private sector. The government can somehow provide stimulus funds for local and state governments without having to take anything whatsoever from the private sector.

…they always use the word “invest” for public money…where do they get the money?

KOOLAID2 on September 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM

The other issue with government jobs is the legacy costs. The public sector jobs don’t just cripple current private job growth, they hinder economic growth for years to come.

byepartisan on September 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Okiehoma and states like Texas and Utah will have their free markets finished off if Obama wins.

PappyD61 on September 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I don’t know about that.

We’re famously bad at backing down when cornered…

Remember the Alamo. That was a death mission. We still did it.

To prove a point.

CorporatePiggy on September 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Oklahoma also has some serious immigration laws, and those laws are enforced. This insures that the jobs available in Oklahoma are held by citizens and legal immigrants, not illegal aliens.

When citizens and legal immigrants are employed unemployment rates drop. When illegal aliens hold those jobs, citizens and legal immigrants remain unemployed.

23 million citizens and legal immigrants are currently unemployed or underemployed in this nation today.

The PEW CENTER estimates that there are currently 7-8 million illegal aliens holding full time jobs in the nation today.

thatsafactjack on September 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Oklahoma policymakers responded to the recession by right-sizing government and reducing the burden on the private sector. The results suggest that economic approach is superior to Obama’s theories.

So, Oklahoma policymakers are superior lightworkers? Superior to Obama?

Oh, this will not end well.

heldmyw on September 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM

One way to IMMEDIATELY cut the costs of government would be to remove the “political appointees” who serve no other purpose than to cover the asses of their party’s elected officials.

GarandFan on September 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Dems don’t give a hoot for resources or reality. To them it’s not one-man-one-vote, it’s one-public sector union bureaudrone-one-vote. That’s the only economics their thought-deficit minds and honor-free consciences can grasp. It’s an institutionalized reward feedback loop. Ending it would be even a willing administratiuon’s biggest hurdle for saving an economy. Now with Ryan on board you could say a Romney adminsitration would be willing, but willing and able to overcome the unwillingness of even a GOP-controlled Congrees are different things. Not holding breath.

curved space on September 8, 2012 at 11:40 AM

The public sector has to be big enough (and more importantly efficient enough) to support the business environment and society at large. Anarcho-Capitalist arguments are going to go nowhere.

What does concern me is when the lines between private and public are blurred…that is Socialism…and I see both the Socialists and the Conservatives embracing this notion.

It is not OK to hand over public moneys or public property to private concerns (fair eminent domain usage is the exception), and you don’t build up government power by spending on what the public doesn’t need on the taxpayers’ backs.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 8, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Froward, not misspelled.

Schadenfreude on September 8, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Check out the thugs and goons in gov’t. If they do this at the FAA imagine how scroomed you are by the rest of the agencies and departments. Stave them all. May they suffer in hell and Hell, and their kin too.

Schadenfreude on September 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It’s so good to see you Tina. Great job on the article. Thanks

CoffeeLover on September 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I’ve started three businesses. I’ve been partners in four others. I live in kalifornia so got a view of what the USA would be like under 0bama in 2002. I would never dream of opening a business in this climate.

The kalifornia state admits that the cost of state government regulations adds 30% to goods produced in the state. Think about that. I hire two people, and one for the state. One of the people I hire actively works against me. I have another to fight the one I hired so when two people are hired I only get one effective person to sell my product, design it, make it, bill for it, and get paid for it.

Not. Worth. It.

I have no more businesses interests here in kalifornia. This does not really hurt me but it does hurt the former employees that had high paying jobs. Now they have a lower paying job or none at all. The local community does not have the out of state and out of country revenue streams. The state does not have the tax revenue streams. Kalifornai killed the golden goose that was Jukin Inc.

jukin3 on September 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

You see – just getting crumbs from the capitalist loaf to spread around is not enough.

redguy on September 8, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Yeah, and everyone but these Progressives knows, if you kill the loaf makers, you will get NO LOAF AND NO CRUMBS.

orbitalair on September 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM

This is a great article; it should be promoted to the left-side “Top Picks” column.

Theophile on September 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I live in Oklahoma City. The thing Oklahoma has going for it is a stable real estate market, especially back in 2007/2008. The wages here are lower than most states, but the cost of living is a lot lower than those other states. Progressive policies make everything more expensive, then they wanna use wage and price controls to compensate. They’re tyrants.

fatlibertarianinokc on September 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Case in point: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/detroit-has-no-horses-but-pays-horseshoer-56k-union-boss-says-its-not-possible-to-eliminate-positions/

Near bankrupt city of Detroit can’t eliminate horseshoer’s 56k job despite not having any horses says union boss.

Wonder if this is a work from home job. haha

stoutj734 on September 8, 2012 at 4:54 PM

As seems typical of private versus public sector discussion, this excellent article misses the core of this issue — it’s all about the social marketplace (ex health care, education, transportation, energy, pensions, welfare, etc). Monopolistic (public sector) social marketplaces behave and will continue to behave as monopolies, so long as they operate outside of normal marketplace rules and regulations. The more any social marketplace has individually driven market forces of any sort, the more efficient it is likely to be at spreading the benefits of that social marketplace through society.

As presented, this article seems to be mostly about the tired big versus small government debate. The problem with this perspective is small government doesn’t necessarily provide for dynamic effective social marketplaces. However, dynamic individually driven social marketplaces will result in a smaller government AND larger and more prosperous private sector economy.

Solutions to many of our economic and social ills revolve around defining and implementing rules and regulations that promote the long term development of individually (not special interest) driven social marketplaces that also include ways to provide the benefits of that social marketplace to those of limited means.

I recall there being a short version of this defined somewhere — “Promote the general welfare, preserve liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. It’s been ignored for several decades. Time to start asking “how’s that working out?”

drfredc on September 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM

In reality, government employees are highly rational economic creatures who make decisions based on the incentives. Vaunted as “public servants,” they’re as self-interested as any of us.

Actually, they are blood-sucking scum who should be killed and turned into Soylent Green. At least that would make them serve a purpose.

woodNfish on September 8, 2012 at 8:56 PM

A job in the public sector does not create wealth. A job in the private sector does–unless it is a job whose purpose is to steer the company in its jumps through the government-mandated hoops. Ever compliance officer, every extra accountant, or lawyer or administrative social worker is, in effect, a government employee carried on a business’s payroll for the purpose of keeping the rest of the business from its job of creating wealth.

njcommuter on September 8, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I was talking with a small masonry contractor yesterday who recited to me a long list of regulatory hurdles he must overcome with every job he does. What killed me was his statement that the county goverment and OSHA employ people to roam the county searching for violations for which they can cite and fine. He said that they have little touble finding the picayune. He also said that he figures to charge $600 per man in order to comply with all government mandated witholding and his real labor expenses.

Zdad on September 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM

The only thing Obama saved was the bloated union salaries and pensions of the UAW — and he did it at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers.

AZCoyote on September 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

And GM still cannot make a car worth a shit…..

redguy on September 8, 2012 at 10:03 AM

And its all temporary. In 2 years, the “stimulus” to the UAW retirement funds will be gone and they’ll be begging for another handout.

Bevan on September 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Talking with my leftish, teacher sister about the feasibility of consolidating counties in western Kansas, as the population keeps dwindling. Her first response: “Yeah, cause f*** the county workers!”

My very rational presentation of the facts caused her to have an emotional breakdown.

If the county workers are not needed, why do we keep them around? If two counties can be consolidated and half the number of people employed (or even just keep 3/4 of the total workers) why not do it?

Because some people think of these jobs as a jobs program. Strange, but when our company projected losing money this year because of drought, we started laying off people and consolidating elevators except for during harvest time. Of course, we can’t force corn to grow and force farmers to bring their bushels to us, so maybe that is the difference…

I responded by saying “How about the state force each western Kansas county to hire 3 more people? That would make as much sense as keeping people around who are not needed.”

cptacek on September 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM