Posted on 03/19/2011 4:17:14 AM PDT by Scanian
Across the country, the interests of organized labor, elected officials and taxpayers are colliding over wages, work rules and the astronomical costs of retiree pensions and health care. As important as these specific issues are to resolve, there is another, more fundamental problem causing so many Americans to lose faith in their government: It is not government unions per se but progressive government itself—long celebrated in Wisconsin, New York and elsewhere—that no longer produces progressive results.
In the early 20th century, the progressives championed a rule-based approach to public-sector management that was a big step forward from the cronyism and corruption of Tammany Hall. Today, however, the very rules that once enhanced accountability, transparency and efficiency now stifle the creativity of public-sector workers and reduce the ability of public investments to create opportunities for citizens—outcomes precisely the opposite of those intended by Progressive Era reformers.
New York City has more than 300,000 employees who work under more than 100 collective-bargaining agreements, along with layers of bureaucratic state civil-service laws. State law mandates that over 1,500 job titles must be filled through competitive written exams, specifically ignoring an employee's actual performance or qualifications. We are even required to administer a civil-service test for the head of our Police Department's counterterrorism unit! (We found a way around it.)
Seniority rules require that layoffs are based on date of hire, not merit. These rules also prevent any significant rewards for outstanding performance and make dismissing bad apples in the Big Apple all but impossible. Even asking employees for their ideas can be against the rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The idiots that negotiated these agreements ‘on my behalf’ as a taxpayer should pay for these salaries and bennies.
What do you think of the idea of holding a referendum for any such changes?
The author overuses the word progressive when talking about things left wing
Having lost the language, he has lost the war.
ping
He uses it like Beck does. In the historical, Woodrow Wilson way.
I don’t agree with the usage either but it has some historical validity.
SOME historical validity? It’s the very definition of the word.
Government at all levels has only itself to blame for the disgust that the taxpayers are voicing. When government began employing people as part of the “war on poverty,” instead of hiring the best employees, the quality of all agencies dropped. Now it takes five hours to get a new car license tag in Houston. Who has five hours of time to spend standing in line? When computers came along, things were supposed to be more efficient. Instead, they’ve gotten much, much worse.
“When computers came along, things were supposed to be more efficient. Instead, they’ve gotten much, much worse.”
You just said a mouthful! All that money paid for technology and to get what?
It has lostthe old meaning over the years with a lot of people. Rush considers it a silly euphemism for liberal.
I like Paul Ryan’s “progressivist” tag for them. It takes away the most of the fake “forward-looking” sense that lefties want the word “progressive” to convey.
.......and to get what?.....
I used my computer to file my tax return electronically with a minimum of effort and complete lack of bother.
I went on line and renewed my auto registration in about 5 minutes
I am able to make detailed studies of national park facilities and even trail maps from my computer and use the info to plan a long trip.
I believe we were talking about employees, government employees in particular.
You are a FReeper. That puts you on a different level.
It is important to recognize the link between European/American Progressives and Communist/Marxist ideologies in understanding the structure of Americas' bureaucratic government and the actions of the current Progressive regime.
Socialism pivots upon denial of economic reality coupled with the use of the coercive power of the state to enforce the favored economic policies of the moment, that is up until the real economy fails to prove the state with the means it needs to sustain that denial.
That is exactly what we are seeing in the obligation-related collapses of our various political jurisdictions, whether local, state or federal. Promises were made that could not be kept. Contracts were signed that implied future revenue streams that are just not possible. Powers of taxation were secured that implied that those being taxed would not move away. And on the federal level, money was printed and bonds sold as if wealth came from the printing press.
Up until this moment, on balance, we had sufficient resources and prosperity (assets and income stream) to be able to grow, raise families and prosper, and still pay these growing claims. However the last wave of economic denial was that government could declare (through the Community Reinvestment Act) it had the power to force lenders to sell mortgages to people who not only could not repay them, but who in a pinch had no intention of repaying them, and that such a policy would not have any downside, let alone one that destroyed several trillions of national wealth.
And now we are dealing with an attempt to stimulate the economy by fooling people into thinking that prosperity has returned. They are responding by trading their political (fiat) dollars for gold, silver, oil, wheat, corn, cotton, and anything else that is a real asset.
The economic theories of J.M. Keynes are so entrenched in the leadership/media-elites exactly because, in the words of Prof. Peter Klein [1], his theory gave them a scholarly basis for doing exactly what they wanted to do anyway, which was to spend, spend, spend, to make government as big and as powerful as possible.
In my experience, the ONLY economic theory that is not based in the denial of reality is the causal-rational approach. This is also called the Austrian School.
The Austrians would first warn you to not confuse money with wealth, and that wealth cannot be printed. Secondly, when government intrudes in private economic decisions, it only distorts them and destroys wealth. The more that government intrudes, the less prosperous we will be on balance. There is a debate in the Austrian school as to the proper role of government in society, but it is a universal given that our present government is far larger than is necessary and beneficial for society. It has certainly grown way beyond the size where it only protects us from the violence of others and it now exists mainly to perpetuate itself, no matter what it costs the average citizen in terms of money or liberty.
And in that observation, we come full circle to my observation above, that such presumption of power expands and expands until the resources it can grasp can no longer enable that expansion. Then it tends to collapse because such a power-hungry beast cannot adapt to less power. We see this in Harry Reid’s complaint that we must keep funding Cowboy Poets, and in California’s budget mess, and in the battle over a public unions in Wisconsin.
Our own government has become a more grave threat to the prosperity and safety of our children than any present external enemy. Our own government, in order to see its present policy plans carried out is willing to place our children in economic servitude in order to pay interest on its debt that is held by foreign powers who are not our friends. That servitude will be imposed by continual dilution of our children’s currency and thus a continual transfer of wealth from those who hold it and create it to those who benefit from money printing. To Keynesians, money-printing is the lifeblood of big and Bigger government. Austrians will explain how it destroys liberty and prosperity.
We must restrain government before it restrains us. The core issue at present is government’s ability to create its own operating funds and to make promises that it cannot fulfill, which is a form of credit expansion. To this end, we must end the Federal Reserve’s ability to create money out of thin air. And we must restrain government’s ability to encumber our own future incomes and private wealth.
I don’t know how to do this specifically, but returning to a gold-backed currency would be a great first step. And when that suggestion is made, you can tell by the reaction of the big government crowd exactly what effect it will have.
[1] Keynesian Economics: The Beast That Won’t Die, Will the Decline Continue? Monday, September 14, 2009 by Peter G. Klein, http://mises.org/media/4079/Keynesian-Economics-The-Beast-That-Wont-Die
If one takes a look at the Progressive movement that supported Henry Wallace for President you find there is little difference between their philosophy of government and the Socialists/Marxists who dominate the Progressive movement today. By the nineteen forties the Progressives had snatched the left wing mantle from the Democrats. They emerged for a time as McGovernites, but generally found a home with Ralph Nader. Now they are in the driver’s seat.
In Texas, one can renew drivers’ licenses online, but not car tags. And just wait until you become familiar with the Social Security bureaucracy. Perhaps you will be fortunate, and it will be broke before you have to “take a number” and sit and wait several hours, along with piles of women applying for “disability” with their rowdy children in tow.
Yes, government “service” is definitely plunging in quality.
We are not getting what we pay for.
I don't apply that to Obama, however. He is just a shiftless, opportunistic puppet that was selected to represent the movement. That's why he and Michele are behaving like ghetto trash that just won the lottery.
“Progressive” has a positive connotation in the modern world and I don’t think we should concede that to them.
Especially since “progressivism” is the leading cause of decline and social problems in this country and abroad as well.
They are and always will be “liberals” and or “leftists” to Yours Truly, with the added options of being “Marxists,” “socialists,” or “communists,” depending on individual circumstances.
I think using “progressive” is good, not only because it is historically accurate, but because it is a word that is not as easily dismissed as “leftist.”
The progressives in the US were statists even before the creation of the Communist states. For a progressive, everything depends on the state (which is run by an expert elite) and its power to determine and dictate behavior, and the individual is basically regarded as a dangerous nuisance. This extends to every aspect of life.
US progressives saw the state enforcing this through positive rewards (i.e., cradle to grave welfare for those who comply) but when that doesn’t work, there is always the threat of coercion for our own good.
“When computers came along, things were supposed to be more efficient. Instead, they’ve gotten much, much worse.”
A computer very well may have taken your job. The computer isn’t nearly as smart personable or capable as you were or are.
I visited a bank last week for some work they needed. They had a huge basement that was unused. I asked about the size of the building, and the answer I got was interesting.
Before the age of computers, they used have many more employees because everything was done “by hand”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.