by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Michelle Nunn has been getting a lot of traction on the “shipping jobs overseas” rhetoric in an effort to paint her opponent, David Purdue, as unsympathetic to American workers. It’s a tactic toward anyone who is in business to demagogue them for shipping jobs overseas, just like they did to Romney in 2012.
Michelle’s cheap shots have lead her to create an ad campaign specifically focused on this narrative. Hours of countless searching has turned up a deposition from 2005, during which David Perdue “answered a question about his ‘experience’ with outsourcing by saying: ‘Yeah, I spent most of my career doing that.’”
Unfortunately, she made a bad decision about whom she chose to highlight — it turns out the ad features a businessman, Roy Richards Jr, whose company has also outsourced jobs. Perhaps she should have done her homework on him instead.
Politifact of Georgia couldn’t even make the stretch that Purdue’s career outsourcing meant that he “was proud to have sent jobs overseas”. Politifact noted, “it is accurate to claim Perdue’s sworn statement is that he spent most of his business career outsourcing. But that doesn’t translate into callous indifference to American workers – or even a tenure that did nothing more than ship jobs abroad. We continue to rate the claim Half True.”
The Washington Examiner goes more in-depth to the nature of his business dealings:
“Perdue was not referring to outsourcing as most understand it – that is, the process of firing American workers in favor of cheap labor overseas — but rather a business plan for his former company, Pillowtex, to save some American jobs, as Politifact noted.
“There is nothing to suggest he was narrowly moving jobs overseas just to increase profits or give himself a bonus,” said Rob Bliss, a finance professor at Wake Forest University in an interview with Politifact. “Moving jobs overseas would have been an effort to make the company more competitive. It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do.”
Politifact also noted other companies where Perdue worked that did outsource jobs, but said those companies were “in industries where jobs were being lost to both cheaper foreign production — outsourcing — and also to technology and global business trends far outside his scope of control.”
As for the attack ad trying to substantiate that Perdue despises American workers, National Review Online called it “seriously hypocritical” since the featured businessman apparently also engaged in outsourcing at his own company. The Atlantic Journal-Constitution gives a rundown here. And NRO noted that “Cato’s Dan Ikenson has explained in Forbes, relocating jobs overseas can have as much to do with costs for customers, proximity to supply chains, or interest in new consumer markets as it does with labor costs and profitability.” Simply put, it’s a stretch to boil down “outsourcing” as simply disdain for the American worker for the sake of profit. But that is what Michelle Nunn wants you to believe.
Businesses continuously make decisions about where to get jobs and how to keep a company afloat. If the policies here in the United States are making it difficult to succeed and compete, or the market and demand has changed, that’s not the fault of the business owner. They must be willing to adapt or risk going out of business. Someone as ignorant as Michelle Nunn about basic economics should not be elected to Senate.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
During a speech at UNLV this week, Hillary Clinton discussed higher education and her opinion that “more needs to be done to assure young people can achieve their dreams and free students from debt.”
While making higher education more affordable is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, the means by which the Democrats have made changes — and continue to push for more change — to the student loan system will cause even higher tuition costs, unsustainable taxpayer debt, and create another rail of entitlement.
The first wave of detrimental change came in 2010 with the Pay-As-You-Earn Program implemented in 2010. Essentially, PAYE has repayment options based on 10% of discretionary income. However, if the payment doesn’t cover the accruing interest, the government pays your unpaid accruing interested for up to three years from when you begin paying back your loan under the PAYE program.” That means the taxpayer.
Obama expanded that 10% income cap this past June with an Executive Order. Its purpose is to extend “such relief to an estimated five million people with older loans who are currently ineligible”, according to the New York Times.
Though this Executive Order — and its 2010 law counterpart — may sound well and good, financially it is a disaster. The 10% income repayment does not help any young person get off on a solid financial footing. Likewise, because some sectors allow for loan forgiveness after a period of time, that amount gets written off by the federal government, thereby substantially adding to the federal debt.
And what of the federal debt? Earlier this summer, CNS News compared the current cumulative outstanding balance on federal student loans to the balance owed in January 2009, and found it had skyrocketed 517.4 percent:
“The balance owed as of the end of May was $739,641,000,000.00. That is an increase of $619,838,000,000.00 from the balance that was owed as of the end of January 2009, when it was $119,803,000,000.00, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement”.
They then compared it to George Bush’s tenure:
“During President George W. Bush’s time in office, the amount of outstanding loans increased from $67,979,000,000.00 in January of 2001 to $119,803,000,000 in January of 2009, an increase of 76.2%. This means that under President Obama, the amount of federal direct student loans increased 579% more than under President Bush.”
The most influential factor in this rapid rise of student loan debt is the PAYE program repayment terms. Besides the 10% option, students also have two other possibilities of loan help, known as “forgiveness:”
1) The balance of your loan can be forgiven after 20 years if you meet certain criteria, OR 2) Your loan can be forgiven after 10 years if you go to work for a public service organization (known as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, or PSLF).
The Wall Street Journal recently discussed the impact of “loan forgiveness” when it highlighted a report from the New America Foundation, which analyzed the PLSF impact. The WSJ noted that the report found “it will not be a small population of borrowers standing in line for this gift from taxpayers. The federal government estimates that a quarter of all jobs may qualify”.
Furthermore, the study concluded that:
“it could become common for the government to pay for a student’s entire graduate education via loan forgiveness” if those kids take jobs at a nonprofit or in government. The new payment terms for such borrowers “are unlikely to cause many graduate and professional students to fully repay their loans—even if they earn a competitive salary in their chosen careers or a salary that places them among upper-income Americans.”
and also,
“This will likely provide an incentive for graduate and professional students to borrow more rather than less, particularly for some professions. It should also make graduate students less sensitive to the price of a graduate or professional degree, allowing institutions to charge higher tuitions, especially for certain programs like healthcare, social work, education, and government, where borrowers would go on to qualify for PSLF.”
The government meddling in higher education and loan programs has perpetuated more crises, which in turn has created more government “fixes”, and hence, a new-tier of entitlements — this time, for education. And that’s not all. Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed a bill earlier this year allowing student loan holders to refinance their loans at a lower rate. How? You guessed it: a bailout to be paid for by yet another tax on the wealthy. President Obama, of course, has endorsed this legislation, but it has yet to pass Congress.
The long-term effect of such an education policy is that a new generation of youth will be raised to pursue careers in the public and non-profit sectors by the dangling carrot of free education money — instead of slugging it out in the private sector.
Do we need more regulators and bureaucrats? Where is the encouragement for innovation, for entrepreneurship, for capitalism? Where is the risk-taking? Why risk-take when you can get your education paid for by taxpayer-funded loan forgiveness and a comfortable government or non-profit job?
Small businesses have been the backbone of America. Our country was built upon those who were willing to invest their time and money to become great. This approach to education is undeniably detrimental to our future by saddling taxpayers with unseemly debt while discouraging our young people from seeking private enterprise. That is not the American Dream.
by | BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
Last week, I wrote about the population shift from the northeastern states to other parts of the country due to the high taxation. It seems that the Yankees aren’t the only ones concerned enough with crushing taxes that they are willing to relocated — the French are too.
From the Independent:
“France’s unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent. As for high-earners, almost 600 people subject to a wealth tax on assets of more than €800,000 (£630,000) left France in 2012, 20 per cent more than the previous year. Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister, announced in London this week that the top income tax rate of 75 per cent would be abolished next January after a number of business tycoons and celebrities moved out.”
Hélène Charveriat, the delegate-general of the Union of French Citizens Abroad, concurs. Charvariat noted that the “young people feel stuck, and they want interesting jobs. Businessmen say the labour code is complex and they’re taxed even before they start working. Pensioners can also pay less tax abroad.”
Though the repeal of the 75% is a start, the loss of French citizens to other parts of the world is going to hamper economic recovery in France. I wrote about this probability in 2012 when Hollande first proposed his “rich tax” scheme. The Laffer Curve effect has been proven here in France as it did in England last year: namely, that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counterproductive for raising further tax revenue.
As we can see, high taxes drives away citizens who wish not to hand over to the government the money they have saved and earned — just to see it misspent and frittered away.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
While stumping for Democrat candidates in Oregon, the Vice President shared his thoughts on the current economy with voters. And he got it very wrong.
“Economic growth has replaced the income that was lost during the recession, but the gains went primarily to taxpayers on the top. I think we should make them start to pay their fair share. Take the burden off the middle class”
Economic growth has not happened. Since Obama began his presidency:
The national debt has skyrocketed from $10.6 trillion to $17.8 trillion
Homeownership has decreased from 67.5% to less than 65%
Labor participation has fallen from about 66% to 63%.
Food stamp use has increased from 32 million to 46 million participants
Lost income has not been replaced: Since Obama began his presidency:
Median incomes have decreased from about $54,000 to $51,500.
The number of Americans who consider themselves middle class has dropped nearly 20%
Gains did not primarily go to taxpayers on top:
“The top 20 percent of earners accounted for 51 percent of all income in 2013, unchanged from 2012 and up slightly from 49.4 percent in 1999″.
Of course, Biden used his (wrong) economic talking points to pull out the old class-warfare playbook and insist that the rich “pay their fair share”.
Finally, if Biden is concerned about taking the burden off the middle class, he needs to start with the government. As I said earlier this week, the middle class has been the most devastated by Obama’s policies. Job growth and small business sustainability have been decimated by government regulation, taxation, fines, and lawsuits meddling in normal business practices. The middle class can’t get good jobs anymore, businesses have failed, growth is tepid, and everyday Americans are rightfully discouraged.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Suddenly, Obama is everywhere talking about economic policies again. He is the mastermind behind the growth in corporate profits. He is the reason for the current stock market highs. He has single-handedly reduced unemployment to its lowest rate since 2008. He is Obama!
And yet, the middle class is repeatedly telling Obama that they feel left behind.
Why such disparity? The Administration can try to attribute these recent “successes” to Obama, but it only shows that they have a laughable cluelessness about what is really happening as a result of his economic policies.
Major corporations are doing well because they have enough size and stability to weather the storm created by Obama’s terrible business policies. This has included minimizing employment and trying to be as lean and efficient as possible. Mom-and-pops, on the other hand, have not the luxury to be as resilient.
The stock market is high only because major corporations have continued to persevere by changing the way they do business. Because of the government policies — including over-regulation and excessive taxation — companies have been forced to operate on the skinny just to survive. By doing so, profits are able to be maintained and the stock market reactive to that.
As a result of efficiency, therefore, unemployment is at its lowest percentage because there are no jobs to be attained anymore and people are just simply leaving the workforce altogether. Obama refuses to acknowledge the fact that labor participation is at its lowest rate since 1962. That is the major contributing factor to his “low” unemployment number — not because of job creation as he claims. Americans have stopped looking for work.
Thus, the middle class has the correct assessment because they have been the most devastated by Obama’s policies. Job growth and small business sustainability have been decimated by government regulation, taxation, fines, and lawsuits meddling in normal business practices. The middle class can’t get good jobs anymore, businesses have failed, growth is tepid, and everyday Americans are rightfully discouraged.
Related: “AP’s ‘Fact Check’ of Obama’s ‘Stronger Economy’ Claims Limited to ‘A Few’ Items: Two”
Lou Dobbs Refutes Obama’s Claim that the Economy Has Improved by Every Economic Measure
Are You Better Off Today? Here are the True Facts & Figures From the Obama Economy
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
I have written on this subject before, and now the effects of high taxes and population migration are playing out in a substantial, political way: the decline of about 40% of Congressional seats in the northeast.
According to the Census Bureau, high taxpayers are moving south. It notes that in the 11 states that comprise the Northeast, population grew at a rate of only 15% over the thirty year span from 1983-2013, while the rest of the nation grew at roughly 41%. The key factor is high taxes. The result is a loss of Congressional seats there.
The American Legislative Exchange Council recently did a comprehensive study on House representation in 1950 from Maine to Pennsylvania, and compared it to current House seats. In 1950, there were 141 House members, but today there are only 85. Remember House seats are based on population — so this change is a 40% loss of power.
Need a dramatic comparison? Texas and California combined together now have more House seats than the Northeast conglomerate. For an area that used to be a political powerhouse, it is becoming increasingly marginalized due to excessive taxes and the ensuing population shift.
In 2011, Reuters had a lengthy article detailing how northern residents were fleeing massive state and local tax hikes. I wrote about the impact of high taxes on New York population loss here in 2012. And the NYTimes reported in December 2013 that Florida was soon to pass New York in population.
High taxes are a major factor in this population and political change, and it will be interesting to watch in the next few election cycles. As the report notes above, “This result is one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in American history. This migration is shifting the power center of America right before our very eyes. The movement isn’t random or even about weather or resources. Economic freedom is the magnet and states ignore this force at their own peril.”
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Discussion began heating up again about the “internet tax” last week when lawmakers pushed back the moratorium on Internet access taxes — set to expire on Nov. 1 — until mid-December during the lame-duck session. In the meantime, let’s call it out for what it really is: a revenue grabber masquerading as “fairness”.
Last year the Senate passed the online sales tax bill, formally known as the “Marketplace Fairness Act”. There is nothing fair about this act. It is a back-door way for states to add additional levies on their citizens under the guise of leveling the playing field . From an accountant’s perspective, here’s how:
Most proponents of the bill suggest that there is somehow a dearth of tax revenue from which states are suffering terribly. This sentiment was echoed at the time in the pages of the WSJ by Arthur Laffer. He wrote that “the exemption of Internet and out-of-state retailers from collecting state sales taxes reduced state revenues by $23.3 billion in 2012 alone, according to an estimate by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The absence of these revenues has not served to put a lid on state-government spending. Instead, it has led to higher marginal rates in the 43 states that levy income taxes”.
But this is simply and patently untrue. State legislatures have always set their tax rates with the full understanding that they would not actually collect that supposed $23.3 billion of internet “slippage”. It’s not like there is a line item in state budgets that lists “uncollected online tax” or “tax cheats” with a number attached. Sales tax is one of many levies whose revenues positively fund government spending. This online tax, if passed by the House next and signed into law, will just be yet another tax (and therefore revenue) for the coffers. Higher marginal rates exists because state-government spending levels are higher, not because of some “absence of tax” nonsense that forces states to raise rates.
In our states’ budgets, current taxes rates (income + sales, if applicable) are set at levels appropriate to cover the calculations of state spending. 49 out of 50 states require a balanced budget. These states are fully aware that taxes are “avoided” (internet and out-of-state) and therefore don’t even count them in their budget calculations. So there is no concrete “absence of revenue”. Instead, by passing this new internet tax, you are merely giving the states a free reign to add a tax without taking the political heat for it, under the guise of “fairness”.
Looked at it another way, it is unconscionable for Congress to pass this legislation without requiring that states lower their marginal rates so that the new tax makes everything revenue neutral. Higher marginal rates as they are already burden taxpayers. This internet tax doesn’t fix anything — because there is nothing in their budgets to be “fixed”. True tax reform (a true “fix”) always means broadening the base and thereby reducing the overall burden of taxes. Instead of that, what we have with this bill is a revenue grab.
Another fallacy for supporters is that including the internet tax in transactions is simply a matter of adding a quick, little tax line where there was none before. But it is highly irrational for legislators to believe that compliance with multiple tax jurisdictions for vendors will be an easy and unburdensome process. The recordkeeping will be excruciating.
This tax nightmare is similar to the 1099 fiasco originally included in Obamacare a couple of years ago, which expanded the reporting requirements to include all payments from businesses aggregating $600 or more in a calendar year to a single payee. Because of the insurmountable amount of reporting and paperwork that would have been associated with it, that provision was highly protested and swiftly and subsequently repealed.
The effect of distressing our businesses to comply with this online tax collection will be a drag on the economy. Can you imagine vendors needing to figure such things as whether marshmallows are a taxable food/candy in some jurisdictions while it might be a non-taxable food in others? To think that software can seamlessly make this distinction is ludicrous, especially software run by the government. When has the government ever actually streamlined anything? And implementing such a convoluted tax while businesses are already having to deal with sorting out the egregious complexities of Obamacare compliance will certainly hurt businesses even more.
Internet tax collection for 9,600 local tax jurisdictions or even just 50 states is too much. If such a tax is to be passed, it should be either a tax in which every state accepts one set of rules OR a tax payable to the state-of-sale only — which would ultimately be better for tax competition overall.
The economy is suffering enough. Adding yet another tax for citizens, which also requires burdensome compliance for businesses, is not the way to do it.
Laffer was correct regarding taxes when he observed that “the principle of levying the lowest possible tax rate on the broadest possible tax base is the way to improve the incentives to work, save and produce which are necessary to reinvigorate the American economy and cope with the nation’s fiscal problems”. But the “internet tax” doesn’t do that. In its current form, it is just another revenue stream for our bloated, overspending government.
This is no “Marketplace Fairness Act”. It is an atrocity.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Department of the Treasury announced last night that it has implemented new rules aimed at making it more difficult for U.S. companies to move their headquarters abroad, which is known as an “inversion”. The rules take immediate effect.
Interestingly enough, when Obama began his crusade against inversions earlier this summer, Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew was adamant enough that rules changes must originate in Congress, he wrote a letter to Congress and he penned an Op-Ed about it in for the Washington Post, both in July. From the Op-Ed:
I call on Congress to close this loophole and pass anti-inversion legislation as soon as possible. Our tax system should not reward U.S. companies for giving up their U.S. citizenship, and unless we tackle this problem, these transactions will continue. Closing the inversion loophole is no substitute for comprehensive business tax reform, but it is a necessary step down the path toward a fair and more efficient tax system, and a step that needs to be in a place for tax reform to work.
Now suddenly it seems Jack Lew has inverted own his position and announced new rules originating from the Treasury Department, not Congress — and did so as soon as Congress left town for a break. Obama referred to that loophole in his statement to the press:
“We’ve recently seen a few large corporations announce plans to exploit this loophole, undercutting businesses that act responsibly and leaving the middle class to pay the bill. I’m glad that Secretary Lew is exploring additional actions to help reverse this trend.”
Except there is no loophole. Business inversions are merely a movement from the U.S. to a foreign HQ. The reasons for doing so is not to avoid paying taxes as the Obama administration would have you believe. And there is no “lost tax bill” either that the middle class is “left to pay”. U.S. companies face a kind of double taxation — taxing both domestic and foreign earned corporate income — and we are the only major industrial nation to this to our businesses.
At a time when many industries are truly global, in the present environment U.S. companies are at a severe financial disadvantage compared to foreign companies. This foreign-earned income is what the United States government currently lays claim to — and is the only country in the world to do so. So under this tax law, U.S. companies therefore pay higher tax rates than other foreign companies do on the income they make in foreign countries, putting U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Jack Lew was right, in a tragic sense, when he stated that “this action will significantly diminish the ability of inverted companies to escape U.S. taxation”. That “U.S. taxation” from which some companies are trying to “escape” is that wretched double taxation on both its domestic and foreign earned income. All an inversion does is allow a U.S. company to change its HQ from the U.S. to a foreign country, for the sole purpose to have the ability to be on par with foreign companies and eliminate the severe tax disadvantage that the U.S. puts on its own businesses in a global setting. Enacting these rules will indeed “significantly diminish” some companies from inverting — and likely diminish their ability to stay competitive around the world in doing so.
Besides the double taxation rules, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%. At a time when other countries have lowered their corporate tax rates, the U.S. has stayed stubbornly high, thereby earning them the 32 spot out of 34 countries in the new “International Tax Competitiveness Index”. This index measured two criteria, competitiveness and neutrality, by examining the extent to which a country’s tax system adheres to these two important principles of tax policy. Responding to that ranking, the Wall Street Journal wryly noted that if punitive legislation on inversions were to be enacted, ”the U.S. could fall to dead last on next year’s ranking. Now there’s a second-term legacy project for the President.” And now we have such measures suddenly implemented.
Sadly, the crusade against inversions is really less about money than it is about scoring rhetoric points by throwing around words like “loopholes” and “unpatriotic” when discussing businesses. Bloomberg noted that “the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that legislation to curb inversions would raise about $20 billion over the next decade”. That is $2 billion a year, a drop in the bucket for tax income.
Making it harder to invert now — which is what some corporations might need to do in order to stay in business — is repugnant. The business climate in this country is difficult and to insinuate that a company is a “deserter” casts the blame squarely in the wrong place — which is a government that over-taxes and over-regulates. Those are the real problems, and the recent uptick in inversions are merely a symptom of the strident anti-business environment that pervades this administration.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
John Koskinen has failed the IRS and the American people. Should he resign?
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified last week about the missing emails lost forever due to computer failures. When questioned about any more crashes or computer issues recently, Koskinen told the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that “Hard drive crashes continue as we speak.”
Can someone please buy the IRS reliable computers and a backup system?
Don’t forget, the IRS canceled the back-up contract service that they had for six years, shortly after Lois Lerner’s original hard drive went missing. Koskinen was forthcoming during the hearing that no backup system currently exists: “There is no system outside the IRS, government or otherwise, that the IRS uses to back up or store emails,”.
On the other hand, there was also no mention if the IRS is complying with the law that states it must keep copies of all data; it apparently hadn’t been routine practice during the time of the IRS scandal actions, so there are no assurances that it is being followed now. That is a travesty.
Koskinen also admitted that “if the agency destroyed records then ‘that was an act not consistent with the law’ but said, ‘There’s no evidence that there were records destroyed.'”.
Notice he didn’t state that “The IRS didn’t destroy records” because then it would logically follow by his own admission that the IRS would have engaged in an act “not consistent with the law”. However, Koskinen chose his words carefully when he stated “there’s no evidence that there were records destroyed” — of course there is no evidence, because it is all missing. He further reiterated this position of “non-destruction”, when he stated, “I never said they disappeared, I said they were recycled.” Because “recycling” equipment and information that is irretrievable isn’t “destruction”.
Lastly, “Koskinen also admitted that IRS employees routinely use personal email accounts to conduct agency business but maintained that ‘they do it inadvertently.'” But how can someone do something “routinely” but also “inadvertently”? Of course, it makes no sense. Don’t forget, the email game is the same practice seen with the former EPA chief Lisa Jackson last year; the IG report found that the personal email use for agency business was indeed rampant among EPA employees. Since the IRS clearly engages in the practice as well, one can only conclude that this probably not “inadvertent” from an agency of the “most transparent administration ever.”
John Koskinen was confirmed by the Senate to head the IRS on December 20, 2013. In the nine months that have followed, he has done virtually nothing to restore the trust of the agency to the American people. As the testimony above freely evidences, Koskinen is aware of many issues and irregularities — such as no backup system and use of personal emails — and yet he has yet to crack down on practices or implement stringent rules among his employees. His leadership has been derelict; his attitude abysmal. American deserves better.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Pension reform needs to begin in the public sector. it is clear that a wide gulf between funding and compensation exists. When pointing out the fact that the majority of federal and state public employees are overcompensated, the response is typically that “these amounts were promised”. But with most budgets now currently running severely in the red, addressing the compensation question is the key to solving major deficit dilemmas across the country. We need to analyze how we got here from two perspectives: 1) what was promised and 2) who promised it.
For localities that want to achieve solvency, it is essential to find out foremost exactly what was really and contractually promised to the public workers and for how long. An executive or union member works under a contract that exists for a specific time period. Their obligation is to provide their services in return for certain compensation and benefits during that time. But that’s it — they are only covered for the period of the current contract.
This point is important because there really can be no part of a negotiated contract that promises any compensation or benefits for services rendered after the end of the contract period; otherwise, the locality runs the risk of runaway financial obligations for which it cannot properly budget and it was not binding future governments not yet in office.
Therefore, if accruals to a defined benefit retirement program to a public service employee have been contracted for, the benefit accruals earned by that employee during the period of the contract can’t be taken away. However, unless a new contract specifically continues that same program into that next contract, the employee should not be entitled to any additional accruals.
Unfortunately, it is apparent that this simple concept has typically not been followed during the vast majority of contract negotiations in the public sector. If it had, negotiators for management would have long discontinued offering the out-of-control defined benefit plan.
Such dereliction is part of the reason that it’s necessary to examine the second point – “who promised it”. It is evident that serious research needs to be done in localities into who it was that negotiated such overgenerous contracts. Ultimately, negotiators have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer not to pay more than fair compensation, thereby restricting compensation and benefits to amounts no greater than what those skills would command in the private sector. Valuable (and expensive) benefits such as job security must be factored in as an element of compensation paid to public sector employees.
Contrast how negotiations are performed in the private sector. The profit motive there keeps compensation at levels where economic forces show to be appropriate (i.e., the point where people generate results that justify its cost). This reflects economically rational “fair” compensation levels. But because the public sector does not have these economic forces to keep compensation levels in check, it is incumbent upon the public negotiators to do so properly. Failing to properly negotiate has created the soaring budget deficits we are experiencing.
There truly is a fundamental difference between private sector “management” and those doing the negotiating in the public sectors. In the private sector, the negotiator — either personally or the company who pays their merit based salary — will suffer serious financial damage if they offer their work force too much, because they will be unable to compete with their competitors in the marketplace.
On the other hand, there are no such competitive inhibitions in the public sector and therefore the negotiation routine lacks the incentive for restraint. Even worse, in most cases, the self-interest of the public sector negotiator is more directly aligned with the union that can get him elected rather than the taxpayer whom he is representing. This is a true case of the fox in charge of the hen house.
Examining the contract process in the public sector will provide an opportunity for fiscal reform. This will ensure that no public sector worker be paid more in any new contract then what those services warrant, without regard to what the prior contract provided. Most importantly, once a contract ends there is nothing on the table. There is nothing to prevent any new contract from offering less that the prior contract, especially where pay and benefits of the prior contract were out of line.
Even though it may be politically difficult and unpalatable, anybody representing the taxpayers has an obligation to those taxpayers. Those who breached the public trust with mismanagement should be held accountable. Budget reform and deficit reduction will naturally follow once compensation levels have been stabilized and brought in line with their private counterparts.
