Re: The one piece on what's happening in WI you must read

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sorry but the private sector got off defined benefit pension plans years
> ago, there is absolutely no reason why the public sector should still be
> entitled to them.

Again, I don't see anything inherently wrong with renegotiating the
contract, forcing a pay cut, and taking a little bit of power from the
unions.  But painting it as "they don't pay for their pensions" is
misleading.  They "pay" by working.  Perhaps the workers are overpaid.
 But they are just as "entitled to their pensions" as I am to my base
salary.  Maybe I'm overpaid or underpaid, but that's what I negotiated
when I was hired.

> The mismanagement of the pension funds is a separate
> issue.  And do we know who managed those pension funds?  WI has been,
> historically, a pretty progressive leaning state so whether it was state
> employed bureaucrats or union heads in charge of managing those funds it was
> those same progressives who screwed it up.   Why would we give them any
> credence now in terms of how these negotiations should be handled?

If the pension fund hadn't been mismanaged during the boom, it
probably wouldn't be carrying a deficit and require catch-up funding
now.  I've no doubt it was some politician or bureaucrat or another
who screwed it up.  My point is simply one of rhetoric: the employees
are not accused of failing their end of the contract, but the pension
fund manager was negligent on its end of the contract, and now the
employees are being asked to pay for someone else's mistake.  If the
contract is unfair, then go ahead and rip it up, deal with the
consequences, and make a new one.  You don't need to use misleading
rhetoric to demonize the employees in order to get political support
for breaking the (corrupt) unions and giving people pay cuts during a
recession.  And if you need to force people to take pay cuts in order
to reign in costs, there's no need to insult them for someone else's
blundering pension fund mismanagement.

>>More importantly, I see the entire union debate as cover fire for the
> *real* corruption (e.g. no bid fire sales of state assets). <
>
> Do you have a source for this, if you posted if before I missed it.

Here's the full text of the bill:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf  The relevant
section is on page 24:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling,
and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the
department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may
contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant,
with or without
solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to
be in the best
interest of the state.  Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or
certification of the public service commission is necessary for a
public utility to
purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such
purchase is
considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the
criteria for certification
of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

No, I haven't read the full text of the bill.  For all I know, every
other section is a shining lamp post of morality and proper
jurisprudence.

> But if
> a fire sale is necessary it is necessary and I don't think one is
> automatically a bad thing.  A $3.6 bil, (IIRC), shortfall in a state's
> budget seems like a good reason to have a fire sale of your assets.  And
> what assets exactly should governments be holding?

I *completely* agree that it's a reasonable thing for the state to
sell off its assets to get out of debt.  But it has a responsibility
to the public to do it in the most reputable way possible.  "without
solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to
be in the best interest of the state" (etc) is open invitation for
corruption.  It reads to me like it was written by a lobbyist who
already has a buyer and price and maybe even kickbacks in mind.  If
that bit changes before the bill passes so that the taxpayers of
Wisconsin are guaranteed some oversight and fair market value for
selling their infrastructure, then I'll retract my criticism.  I
haven't looked up the "notwithstandings", so maybe they somehow negate
what to all appearances looks like some shameless and intentional lack
of oversight.

-- 
Nick

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot