Over the past year, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has become a folk hero by striking back at greedy union demands, lambasting union leaders, and standing up for taxpayers. But this year, Christie is facing some competition, particularly from new governors Scott Walker (R., Wisc.) and John Kasich (R., Ohio).
Walker, a former county executive and state assembly member, has an ambitious list of reforms he would like to see enacted. To start with, he announced last Friday that he wants to eliminate most collective-bargaining rights for the majority of public employees, exempting only police, firefighters, and state troopers.
Advertisement
He also wants public employees to begin contributing 5.8 percent to their pension plans. (Currently, most of them contribute nothing to their plans.) On health care, he would like them to increase their contributions to 12.6 percent, up from 4 to 6 percent. Taken together, the two measures would result in what amounts to 8 percent pay cuts for state workers. The changes would also save the state — which is facing a budget shortfall of $137 million this fiscal year — $30 million over the next few months. More important, they would save $300 million over the following two fiscal years, when Wisconsin is facing a $3.6 billion deficit.
“We look at wage and benefit costs and we believe we’ve got to have as much flexibility as possible,” Walker said in an interview with National Review Online. “It’s not a matter of picking on public employees, who are doing a good job; it’s just a matter of saying this all has got to be put in balance. And when you compare that to what others are facing outside of government,” he adds, “it certainly is fair.”
“This isn’t going to be a bloodless move,” predicts Christian Schneider, a fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. He points out that the state has “a long history of public-employee-union activism.” While public employees can’t strike in Wisconsin, Schneider suspects they will find other ways — whether it’s teachers’ ceasing after-school activities, or correctional-facility employees’ refusing to work overtime — to “take their case to the public” and make any attempt at reform as politically toxic as possible.
There has already been significant backlash. Over 10,000 union supporters protested at the state capitol Tuesday, and the Wisconsin branch of the AFL-CIO is running radio and TV ads blasting the cuts.
And although both the state senate and the assembly have Republican majorities, passing this reform package could prove difficult. Republican senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald told the Associated Press earlier this month that changing the law governing collective bargaining would be a “walk through hell.” Right now, it looks as if the legislature is determined to press on with the reform and deal with the political consequences later. A vote could be held as early as today.
Whatever the political fallout from the collective-bargaining reforms, there may at least be wide public support for Walker’s pension-contribution push, a measure that he touted during his campaign. It proved wildly popular with voters: 76 percent of Wisconsin residents thought public employees “should contribute to their own pensions,” according to a poll commissioned by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute last summer.
I think you really need to look at Herr Christie's record. He didn't stand up for tax payers. His budget cuts he got last year impacted suburban NJ taxpayers more than any other. Please look up Abbott rulings. NJ has approx 560 school districts. The schools funding comes from primarily property taxes. However NJ has a state income tax which is constitutionally mandated towards property tax relief (also 1/2% of state sales tax also is mandated towards property tax relief). That property tax relief comes primarily from state aid to schools.
What Christie did was take 5% of school budget and slash it. He and Schundler said that the cuts would be 5% of aid. What Christie's cuts did was eliminate aid for 59 school districts all together (those 59 towns send over a $1 billion/year to Trenton) and slash by over 20% of suburban state aid. What Christie did (and what Corzine and no other Dem ever did) was increase as a % of state of the 31 Abbott districts to almost 60% of state aid. Christie hammered the suburban property owner--the exact people who voted for him. 31 school districts get about 60% of all aid...the 530 who are left get scraps.
Christie also promised to abolish Coalition on Affordable Housing (COAH)--he was slapped by NJ Supreme court and has done nothing about it.
Christie is no conservative. Why did he nominate Paula Dow (liberal Democrat) as Attorney General? Why won't he join in the lawsuit against Obamacare? Why does he continually promote cap and trade? NJ is part of regional greenhouse gas initiative (RGGI). Why did he just squash a natural gas pipeline from offshore? This magazine and columnists really need to look at Christie's actual record--not his rhetoric.
I suggest you look at columnist Paul Mulshine -- a columnist who actually looks at Christie's record. This magazine is becoming a joke by continually parading Christie and Romney as some saviors.
“I believe that unionism, kept within its proper and natural bounds, accomplishes a positive good for the country. Unions can be an instrument for achieving economic justice for the working man. Moreover, they are an alternative to, and thus discourage State Socialism. Most important of all, they are an expression of freedom. Trade unions properly conceived, is an expression of man’s inalienable right to associate with other men for the achievement of legitimate objectives.”
Ms Katrina,you seem to push every rino out in the hinterland on us. Please find a conservative to write about,I can find a few for you if you need help.
Finally some Republicans are finding the courage to do what must be done--curb the power of public employee unions! I would go further and outlaw them and abolish any kind of civil service system that in effect gives them tenure. Until this is done, both at the state and federal level, the public will continue to be held hostage to a so-called public interest group that has no ones interests at heart but its own. And those "interests" are bankrupting the the country.
"On Mr. Daniels’s first day in office, he decertified the state government employee unions; in the first eight months, 92% of government employees quit paying their union dues."
1. 2012 may be Gov Christie's "moment," in the same sense that WWII was Churchill's. He appears to be the right man for the times--but the times can change and pass him by.
2. His demurral on presidential ambitions clearly has the wiggle-room to allow him to become convinced he should run. But the "I'm not ready" line will wear thin--eventually people will believe it.
3. His demurral on vice-presidential ambitions is much more believable: "Can you see me being somebody's vice president? I would feel sorry for that man or woman."
4. If Christie really does not run in 2012, the primary beneficiary may be Mitch Daniels, who lacks the entertaining bombast, but possesses the sustained record of accomplishment in Indiana that Christie clearly wants to build in New Jersey.
As has been mentioned elsewhere on NRO (in the context of ed. unions), a big issue with the public employee unions is LIFO (Last-In, First-Out) rules when it comes to workforce reductions.
Many new hires in the public sector are already working under downsized total-benefits packages. Unfortunately under LIFO rules, these will be the first to go. The oldsters who have the more generous plans will stay.
I don't want to see discrimination against the aged (I'm becoming one myself) but lay-offs ought to be flexible enough to consider performance on the job and whether that function is properly within the necessary scope of government.
What I don’t understand is why no one seems to be talking about the age that government employees can retire and immediately receive their full pension and lifetime health care. I believe that for federal employees it is 57. Here in Anchorage teachers can retire with full pension and lifetime health care after 20 years regardless of their age and immediately begin collecting their benefits. So you have 45 year old retired teachers running around. Funding a defined benefit plan for that long of a period is extremely costly. No wonder programs have to be cut and class sizes increased. All the money is going to people that are no longer teaching.
So people are talking about government employees pay, asking them to contribute to their retirement and their health care. We are also starting to talk about raising the Social Security retirement age. But no one seems to want to talk about what is costs to allow public employees to retire at a young age and immediately collect defined benefit pensions and health care. Can someone explain that to me?
While unions can be a healthy part of the free market (provided they don't engage in violent, coercive, or monopolist tactics), we're talking about Government Employment here - not the Free Market.
Typical union tactics of strikes and closed shops have no place in Public Service. Stay or go. If you want "collective bargaining" with your employer (the People) then do it at the ballot box like the rest of us.
“Meticulous attention,” the president insisted in 1937, “should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
“[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt on why public sector unions are a bad idea.
All those past promises made by past politicians...
These programs, promises, and perks were typically American when they began. As we are prone to do, when we see someone in trouble or when we have an abundance - we share.
At one time, we felt we could afford them all. Unfortunately, we can not pay our bills any longer, and therefore, we can not continue to fund these "good intentions" any longer.
All this proposed spending is irresponsible. Most of the current spending is irresponsible. Some of the past spending was irresponsible. Anyone who tells you different is simply selfish and eager to benefit themselves above all else.
What at one time was generous is now selfish, but that is what happens when a BENEFIT becomes an ENTITLEMENT; it is what happens when GIVING becomes TAKING; it is what happens when SELF-SUFFICIENCY becomes a DEPENDENCY.
So, is it the Taxman who Cometh?
He's already been and gone. The governments have been taxing Peter to pay Paul for so long, Peter is facing bankruptcy.
It's the RepoMan who's coming - and Peter is sending him straight to Paul.
Amen to that, ukcats. People need to look beyond the entertaining youtube videos and consider Christie's actual record. I found it particulaly galling when Christie, despite being asked repeatedly how he was going to lower taxes in NJ, refused to answer. His continuous and lame claims that he was working on a plan certainly never resulted in one. And despite constantly criticizing his primary opponent's flat tax plan(which was directly modelled on Pennsylvania's income tax) Christie had the hypocrisy to praise the PA plan after he was elected. And if I had a dime for every time he said he was going to "gut COAH"... People started to see through him as the election neared and he watched his double digit lead erode to the point where he almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
In my area(Madison) teachers aren't just ceasing after school activities-they aren't coming in at all. Schools have been closed for the second day in a row.
wadepm - why keep police and firemen out? Because they do jobs no one else will do. They are putting their lives on the line daily and I have no argument with them keeping their pensions and benefits. And don't use the "teachers put their lives on the line too" line because the number of teachers who actually do that is limited and delineated by the school systems they work in. I would have no issue with districts allocating higher salaries and benefits to teachers in schools where there is danger. Who would. But comparing what teachers (as a whole) do to what firefighters and police do is ridiculous. Just like politicians proclaiming tax cuts mean less firemen and police is ridiculous. Those are jobs which are supposed to be part of the responsibility of a town, city, state, country. Teachers are NOT.
I wonder if the "strike" in Wisconsin is legal. If not, can the governor void the current contract, like most unionized private companies can?
Also, would this require the union to pay these members through their strike fund? We all know how much money the unions pumped into the Democratic coffers in the last election. The question would be, "Do they have the money to pay from the strike fund?"
Police, firefighters, and state troopers should be included in Governor Walker's government employee benefit reforms. Not doing so makes this look like a political move rather than a true budgetary matter.
Meg Whitman proposed the same thing when she was running for governor. Jerry Brown blasted her for her hypocrisy of applying one standard for a certain group of public employees and another standard for another group, and he was right.
And, while we're talking about pension and benefits reforms for government workers, let's include Members of Congress and state and local politicians in these reforms.
The actions of the walk off the job teachers in Wisconsin only increase my belief that no public employee should be allowed to be in a union. Period!
I think these unions are not understanding (or chose to ignore) the current political situation. In the past, actions like these worked because the general public were more supportive of teachers. So the reformers were forced to back down and the union would prevail.
However that day is long past. Most know that those teachers are likely taking home higher pay and have far better benefits then the general public. So when they demand raises, the public has said, there a recession going on, the general public is unemployed, and is broke.
In years of recession public employees will not get raises. What is so hard to understand why that is necessary?
I think the union will be surprised when the governor of Wisconsin gets more public support then them. It's clear they don't want to deal with the new governor so they will lose far more.
The public is over the "public employees are underpaid" nonsense. Its time to suck it up.
Frankly we need to return to the lower public pay. Twenty percent less pay then the private sector was once the norm. People understood that they wouldn't be laid off and there would be decent benefits in return. If top money is ones top concern don't take a public job.
The main beef is with the union and its leaders. The general public isn't against the rank and file. I think many teachers are hoping this passes so they can quit paying their union dues!!
Follow
