home

Richard Cohen: Funny Union Guy

Richard Cohen is a "funny guy" AND a union guy:

I pause now to assert my bona fides. I got my first union card while still in college and remained a member of the Newspaper Guild throughout my career, paying dues even when I no longer had to. I can whistle union ditties, and I swell with pride at the ancient picture of my grandfather, posed with his good friend, the union organizer.

Some of his best friends are in unions. Sheesh.

Speaking for me only

< Somali Pirates Kill Four Americans | Will Obama Become A Progressive On Tax Policy After The 2012 Election? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    in other words (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    he has a career of reaping the benefits he doesnt want other to have?

    Sustained wealth (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    Where does he think the wealth and power of this nation came from?

    It came from the middle class that worked and invested to build a quality of life that was the envy of the world.

    We may be in a global economy, but without middle class America, the world economy would collapse. China and India are decades away from being the promised land.

    Without a sustained middle class, there will be no upper class. Unions are one of the ways to insure our survival as a nation.

    OMG, I can't believe you made me read (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    the whole column; the part you highlighted was bad enough, but the totality of it?  Utterly contemptible.

    That doesn't' surprise me; what does, I guess, is that someone's willing to pay this man money to write this garbage.

    You made me look, so I'm making the rest of you look...here's a little sample:

    But, really, enough is enough. The Wisconsin state employees who are demonstrating in Madison have my sympathy but not my total support. I recognize that they have offered givebacks, and I recognize, too, that Gov. Scott Walker has gone too far - if not trying to bust the unions, as it is alleged, then surely trying to cripple them. In the manner of Ronald Reagan taking on student demonstrators at Berkeley in 1966, Walker will become the champion of the common man, the Middle American and all of that. This works. Reagan, you might recall, went on to become president.

    Reagan personified the disgust many Americans felt toward unruly (and ungrateful) college students. Walker is personifying the feeling of resentment and anger toward government workers who have so gamed the system that some of them retire on larger stipends than the average American makes in salary - and with health care, too. Like Reagan, Walker has tapped into a feeling of disgust - the always-dangerous sense that you and I have played by the rules and saved for our modest retirements, while government workers, on our dime, have run off with pensions they do not deserve. We feel we have been played for a fool.

    Walker as the champion of the common man?  Are you kidding me?  Is Cohen thinking that maybe Scott Walker is presidential material in the mold of - urp - Reagan?  

    Holy moly.

    One thing's for sure: Cohen has tapped into a pretty big feeling of disgust himself - that which I feel for him and many of his colleagues.

    Sure hope Cohen doesn't need a public employee anytime soon...

    How dare (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by chrisvee on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:33:56 PM EST
    those government workers think they can retire in comfort -- and with healthcare, too!  Let them live in honest penury like the rest of us.

    Except for Richard Cohen and our ruling class, of course.

    What a crazy country we live in where anger is directed against public employees for 'running off with pensions on the taxpayers' dime' yet useless newspaper columnists live in relative luxury.

    Parent

    People like Cohen conveniently forget that (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    public employees not only pay taxes while they are working, but also pay them on the pension benefits they receive when they retire.  Cohen ignores that many public employees make the nice incomes they do because staff shortages and hiring freezes pretty much require that people must put in the overtime to make up the difference in manpower.  And pensions are tied to earnings.  Cohen would have you believe - wants people to believe - that these are just lazy people sitting at desks doing nothing for 8 hours a day, who then file for disability so they can retire in luxury.

    No one believes there aren't public employees who are taking advantage of their employer, but it's the inference that no public employee deserves a pension benefit that might give them a decent standard of living in retirement that rankles.

    There are some public jobs you could not pay me enough money to take - and one of the reasons would be that I would have to deal with people like Cohen, who get off on throwing their I-pay-taxes-so-you-work-for-me weight around, and treat public employees like gum stuck on the bottoms of their shoes.

    What a tool.


    Parent

    Most state employees of CA are not (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    eligible for overtime and/or comp. time.  

    Parent
    What are these... (none / 0) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    ...overtime and comp. time things?  

    Parent
    Precisely. Correctional officers and (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:49:55 PM EST
    law enforcement in general, on the other hand.

    Parent
    Ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    the "unruly college students", aka dirty effing hippies. It was only a matter of time.

    Run off with pensions they do not deserve? If that is really how most Americans think about public employees or anyone else that has earned a pension, it is just jealousy and should not be allowed to drive public policy.

    Parent

    It would be nice if someone (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    would promote the idea that people should work to get good healthcare and retirement benefits for more people rather than work to make sure noone other than the top 2% will have good healthcare and retirement benefits.

    Of course, that idea with a little help might actually prevent going back to the great times of the robber barons.    

    Parent

    Why do you hate rich people? (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    How DARE you come here and spout such socialist nonsense!  <snark>

    :)

    Parent

    In fairness (none / 0) (#9)
    by sj on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    That's the idea behind unions.  

    So instead what is happening is the opposite of you want.  The goal is to promote the idea that people shouldn't even expect to get good health care cause we already have the best in the world.  And then they should turn over all their retirement monies to wall street so they can strengthen this generation's robber barons.

    Parent

    Pardon my confusion, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by the capstan on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    but I think I have been playing Rip Van Winkle for a few years: when did government workers game the system?  My husband left a pretty good-paying job to become an employee of the state university system.  His new salary was a couple of thousand lower per year, and it stayed at a rather shameful amount (we had to borrow to get thru the summers) for quite a few years.  What did he gain, besides satisfaction?  The knowledge that his retirement benefit would be relatively higher than that of people in the private sector.  Back in the 'dark ages' around the middle of the 20th century, everyone knew about that trade off.

    But I guess the subject is government workers who have some sort of representive to bargain for them.  My husband never did--until he got high up enough to make a winning case about unniverity administrators being the only decently paid members of a university staff.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I see your point (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    He made an informed decision with no pressure.

    He got a job he enjoyed.

    He got a retirement plan he wanted, and no one will take away, and it is being paid for by the tax payers.

    Are you saying that the lower current salary was not offset by the higher retirement?

    And I lose you about the administrators.

    Parent

    Tell me, please-- (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by the capstan on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    1. How and when did he 'game' the system?

    2. The retirement plan is not funded entirely by tax payers.  He contributed pre-tax and later after tax dollars to it.  I suppose those taxpayers whose kids learned something in class and later got a decent job probably got their money's worth.

    The lower salary was offset by future benefits, as was well understood back then.  I do not call that 'gaming the system.'  It constituted a trade:
    lower pay during most of his working years, but excellent retirement benefits.

    Administrators:  Who, besides athletic personnel, is highly paid?  The presidents and deans who pull in the donations and the research all-stars who attract research money.  The folks who actually teach all those aspiring grads--no way!  The Chronicle of Higher Education, I believe it was, helped make his case for higher FACULTY pay.

    Parent

    I did not say (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    or imply he "gamed" the system.

    I pointed out that he made an informed decision, got a job he enjoyed and a retirement plan that will not be taken away.

    The amount that he paid vs what the taxpayer funded was not specified by you.

    In WI the amount has been zero until now when the individual contribution has been changed to 5.8% of salary.

    In either event, nothing will be taken away that was previously agreed to.

    Whether or not his working years salary and benefits were less than what he could have earned in a private sector job is pure speculation. And the studies that I have seen show that government employees make more in wages and much more in benefits that their private sector peers. That is the crux of the argument for many non-government workers.

    The essence of obtaining better compensation in the non-union world is to have talents that are in short supply and demonstrable better results.

    In the union world it is the threat of striking and shutting down the factory/school/airline.

    In the private world, absent a bailout such as Obama laid on GM and Chrysler, when unions over reach the host will eventually die and be replaced by a better one.

    That is not the case with government employee unions because the politicians recognized that if they gave the unions what they wanted then the unions would give them money and support back.

    And since the politicians could increase taxes and make the citizens pay by force of law there has been no effective outside feedback to control the situation.

    We are now seeing strong negative feedback from the taxpayers.


    Parent

    Maybe you should look at ... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    ... the studies that I have seen show that government employees make more in wages and much more in benefits that their private sector peers.

    a real study, rather than opinion pieces from winger groups.

    Or you could stick with your usual methods (no links, no real studies, silly opinion pieces from climatedepot.com, etc.).

    Tough one ...

    Parent

    ah yes... nothing like an unbiased (2.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    study from an unbiased source....

    --Jeffrey H. Keefe is associate professor of labor and
    employment relations at the School of Management
    and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, where he is
    conducting research on occupational and employment
    restructuring in telecommunications, meat processing,
    and public employment. He teaches courses on collective
    bargaining, negotiations, financial analysis, benefits
    and social insurance, and strategic research.

    I hope my sarcasm doesn't drip to much acid on the floor.

    Parent

    Seriously, JimmyJoe? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:12:06 PM EST
    The same guy who cites climatedepot.com as evidence of the credibility of global-warming wingers is complaining because the guy is a professor at a public university?  A website that uses a petition of "1000 scientists", many of whom are not even scientists and few of whom actually have any expertise in the field?  None of whom have published any peer-reviewed research on the subject?  On a website founded by a political hack who used to work for Inhof?

    Sometimes, ... I'm certain you must be trying to be funny.

    Hate to break the news to you JimmyJoe, but the guys who are experts on many issues are usually academics who study these issues for a living, and many of those are public employees.

    Nice try, though.

    Parent

    A professor of labor studies (none / 0) (#65)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 07:25:29 AM EST
    has something to say about labor, and PPJ tries, and as usual, fails in his attempt to be snarky about the fact.

    PPJ don't believe in them pointy headed professors, if he hadn't been in Naval Aviation he'd probably be denouncing them smarty pants eggheads who say that the Earth is round...................

    Parent

    Yman (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:10:56 AM EST
    I find Jimmy Joe, Jimmy, etc., to be insulting. I thought my responding to you as "Yamanny" would give you a hint.

    Please use my moniker and refrain from the personal insults.

    As for global warming, I give you Phil Jones, "tricks" and embarrassing private emails in which he admits that global warming has not happened.

    Parent

    Re: AGW (none / 0) (#69)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:17:39 AM EST

    Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

    Can you get back to us about how Phil Jones is behind this as well?


    Click or National Snow and Ice Data Center Me


    Parent

    And your point is?? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:37:44 AM EST
    Next thing I know you will be blaming Unicorn Gaseous Emissions on CO2.

    What the e-mails say
    The reason the scandal concerns Digitivity is 1) the electronic nature of the hack/whistleblowing and 2) the theme of open vs. closed arena research.

    Below are some brief excerpts. The full corpus is available at Link

    The e-mails at first glance seem to reflect:

    Manipulating data

    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Is the world really warming?

    "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

    Deletion of documents

    "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4 [IPCC]?"

    Ire about critics

    "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

    Fixing the peer-review process

    "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

    "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor"

    Desire to fix the results

    "As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political; it is being selfish." CRU Director Phil Jones



    Parent
    That the reduction of Arctic Ice in January (none / 0) (#75)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:40:26 AM EST
    to record low levels is evidence of AGW, unlike the e-mails which you wave around as though they mean something.

    Parent
    Speaking of anecdotal stuff (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:31:42 PM EST
    The amount of sea ice covering the Arctic dramatically increased last month, reaching levels not seen at this time of year for nearly a decade.

    Returning ice - after years of declining

    Link

    Parent

    Try and keep up, PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 09:37:09 PM EST

    February 2, 2011
    Arctic Oscillation brings record low January extent, unusual mid-latitude weather

    Arctic sea ice extent for January 2011 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. The Arctic oscillation persisted in its strong negative phase for most of the month, keeping ice extent low.

    Overview of conditions

    Arctic sea ice extent averaged over January 2011 was 13.55 million square kilometers (5.23 million square miles). This was the lowest January ice extent recorded since satellite records began in 1979. It was 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) below the record low of 13.60 million square kilometers (5.25 million square miles), set in 2006, and 1.27 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

    Click or NSIDC Me

    So you can see it graphically:

    Click or Figure 3 Me

    BTW, this is what the Wiki has to say about the Global Warming Policy Center:

    History

    Established in November 2009, and chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to address climate change and that it aims to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant".[2][3]

    The GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, renting office space from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.[4] The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of environmental science .[5]
    ....................................
    Temperature graph

    When the GWPF's website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of '21st Century global mean temperatures' showed a slow decline over the selected period from 2001-2008. Hannah Devlin of The Times found an error for 2003 and noted that if the period from 2000-2009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall.[10] Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The GWPF blamed a "small error by our graphic designer" for the mistake which would now be changed, but said that starting the graph earlier would be equally arbitrary.[11]



    Click or Wiki Me

    You sure know how to pick your authorities, PPJ, I'll say that for you............

    Parent

    Nice, except for the fact ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    ... that you conveniently ommitted the fact that the very scientists releasing this information say it does not support the wingers'"theories" on global warming.

    The scientists who released the data stressed that last month's rise was part of yearly variations in ice cover and could not be taken as a sign that global warming is coming to an end.

    But "C" for effort ...

    Parent

    The East Anglia emails?!? Pffffttt ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    Not even a decent try, Jimmy.  First of all, the emails of a single researcher are hardly of any note.  Secondly, you ignored the heeee-YOOOOOGE scientific consensus on the issue, as well as the fact that your previous "evidence" from climatedepot.com is a joke.  Finally, the East Anglia email controversy has been debunked so many times it's too hard to count.

    You're a little vague in your accusations (as usual), but if you're talking about Jone's reference to "Mike's nature trick" (Dr. Michael Mann of PSU), this has been discussed ad nauseum.  While you wingers loved to take the phrase out of context to suggest Jones and/or Mann were engaging in some sort of falsifying of data, several independent inquiries supported both Dr. Jones and Dr. Mann, concluding that the so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.

    See here.

    Also here

    And here.

    The House of Commons Investigation concluded that there was has no case for Jones to answer and should be reinstated.  Russell Muir's investigation "the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any competent researcher.

    I could easily post another dozen cites, but you get the point.

    Facts, real scientists, data and studies versus Jimmy and climatedepot.com

    Easy choice.

    Parent

    As they say in Texas (none / 0) (#81)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    "You can't fix stupid."

    Parent
    anyone besides me (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:57:28 PM EST
    really sick of seeing it implied that because someone works for a government, state or federal, they should not have the right to collectively bargain?

    I wonder is its because they are some of the last and hardiest holdouts to union busting?

    Parent

    I didn't mean to imply (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    Government employee unions should not exist.

    Parent
    If they aren't allowed to collectively bargin (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    why should they exist in the first place?

    Parent
    the argument seems to be (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    once they are paid with "taxpayer dollars" they should no longer be allowed to bargain.


    Parent
    No, you actually stated it (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    because you want unions to be, what, social clubs? annual picnic organizers?  just t-shirt distributors?

    Without the right to collective bargaining, unions are not unions . . . which is what you want.  Pfft.

    Parent

    It seems that what we have here is a failure (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 08:08:02 PM EST
    to communicate.

    Let me restate.

    I do not believe that any government employee of any type should be allowed to be a member of any union of any kind for any reason.

    Parent

    That's the opposite of what you (none / 0) (#62)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:14:39 PM EST
    wrote on this thread earlier:

    I didn't mean to imply (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    Government employee unions Government employee unions should not exist.

    The problem you have, PPJ, is perhaps you're a bit confused yourself on what you want to say, not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Parent

    In the same thread .... niiiiiice! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:26:47 PM EST
    I guess what he meant to say was that he's okay with the existence of government employee unions, ...

    ... as long as they don't have any members.

    As logical as most of his stuff.

    Parent

    It's all the fault of the (none / 0) (#64)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:47:56 PM EST
    'extremist Democrats' and Lefties, don't cha know?

    Parent
    Both of you are (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:12:19 AM EST
    smart enough to figure out my position.

    ;-)

    Parent

    But are you intelligent enough (none / 0) (#68)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:13:42 AM EST
    to state it clearly in the first place?

    :-)

    Parent

    That would require ... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    ... clarity, honesty and logic.

    Don't hold your breath.

    Parent

    Insult noted. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:18:38 AM EST
    It's no insult (none / 0) (#71)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:22:23 AM EST
    you have already contradicted yourself about government employee unions, and you can always cite Walt Whitman if you need to:

    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.)



    Parent
    And then tell him (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 01:40:38 PM EST
    so he'll know what it is.

    Parent
    You seem to forget that (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 02:35:44 AM EST
    taxpayers receive value in return and the value received exceeds the compensation paid and that INCLUDES pension and health care benefits.

    I earned 20% less than my counterparts in the private sector and when factoring in the size and complication of the installation and the inherent additional knowledge requirements I earned 30% less.

    You know absolutely ZERO about this subject.  

    It appears your only source of information is right-wing media and "think" tanks (nothing more than propaganda organizations).

    When I retired I left behind over 4000 hours of uncompensated time and I'm not in any way unique.  Thousands of public employees have done the same because work had to be done and there simply wasn't the funding for enough people.

    When I read comments from your type I think about all the nights, weekends and holidays that so many public employees work without pay and the school teachers who buy school supplies out of their own meager salaries for their students and all because of the laggard PHONY patriots who refuse to pay for the country they CLAIM to love.

    Parent

    While I keep hearing (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:28:10 AM EST
    about the teacher buying supplies from his meager income what I see is a person making around $90K in salary and benefits and a country that is second only to the Swiss in spending on education.

    What I also see are students that can't read and an educational group that is more and more tilted towards the radical Left and political indoctrination at all levels, K-MBA and PHD.

    And no one is talking about negating previously agreed to retirement plans.

    As for leaving behind, when I left Naval aviation I left no uncompensated time. Funny how that worked. 24 7, weekends, holidays.... not a dime of overtime.

    What I took with me was a love of country and some memories that included the deaths of some close friends.

    So don't play the "love" trick. I proved mine.

    You?

    Parent

    You went wrong right after ... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 11:46:21 AM EST
    ... "what I see".

    As for leaving behind, when I left Naval aviation I left no uncompensated time. Funny how that worked. 24 7, weekends, holidays.... not a dime of overtime.

    What I took with me was a love of country and some memories that included the deaths of some close friends.

    So don't play the "love" trick. I proved mine.

    I can almost hear the tiny violins playing ...

    Parent

    Never had leave time (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 12:35:08 PM EST

    while you were in Naval Aviation, PPJ?

    That would explain a lot.

    Nobody held a gun to your head and made you join, PPJ.

    Save the pity party for someone else, you certainly don't deserve one.

    Parent

    radical indoctrination at all levels (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    And None Dare Call it Conspiracy.

    Or, as Tail Gunner Joe said, he has a sock full of sh*t and he knows how to use it.


    Parent

    Didn't do his homework: WRONG (none / 0) (#13)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    on Wisconsin's state employee pension plan, the most solid in the country (as I previously posted here; I happen to know about public pension plans).

    The employees have given into the fund for years, they have managed it well -- and they have sacrificed salary increases for years and years for their pension benefit, the benefit that they built.

    Of course, I saw that this Cohen dominated the op-ed page in Wisconsin's largest paper today, the paper that supports Walker no matter what and continues to misinform the public there in the interests of the outside overlords, the Kochs.

    The Milwaukee paper did not even attempt to counter Cohen's misinformation with its own research into its own state pension fund, either.  I suspect the paper's promotion on -- not journalism on -- Walker throughout the campaign and since will mean another decline in circulation.  So it must be counting on the Koch money paying for a lot of ads, like the ones reported to be flooding Wisconsin's tv markets.

    Parent

    Reagan/ Walker (none / 0) (#25)
    by Madeline on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    All Walker needs to do now to do is bring in the National Guard shoot them.

    Bloody Thursday at Berkeley
    http://bit.ly/gPgtbv


    Parent

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 09:13:08 AM EST
    Kent State (4 dead, 9 wounded) in 1970, and ten days later, Jackson State (2 dead, 12 wounded).  (Although Kent State was National Guard and Jackson State the police).  I clearly remember them- I was in college, and many of us (including myself) participated in anti-war protests.  All these many years later, I still think "It could have been us, too."  

    Parent
    See Mother Jones article on the Kochs (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    and a Salon article on the Kochs, "How the World Works: The Koch brothers as Wisconsin puppetmasters" -- and a DKos diary, "The Koch Brothers' End Game in Wisconsin" . . . among others that, put together, suggest that the state employee take-home pay cuts and Medicaid cuts and huge hit, too, on collective bargaining rights all may serve as steps toward killing off the unions in the Kochs' industries in Wisconsin, too -- but that all may be smokescreens for this even bigger bonanza for the Kochs, Walker's biggest backers by far.

    I have a great idea! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 12:03:52 PM EST
    Why don't we raise taxes on, say, all union employees who make over $250,000 a year.

    You know, along with everyone else who makes that much.

    Or shoot, if that's too high, I'll compromise, we should raise taxes on anyone making $100,000 a year.

    Now those rich union employees will have to pair more back to the government.  Problem solved.

    excellent idea! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 07:37:05 AM EST
    That;'s for the Kochs, too (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    according to a great job of journalism I read elsewhere yesterday; I'll try to find it.  The Kochs who bought Walker's win already own a lot of Wisconsin business, probably the reason they picked on the state first in their Club for Growth campaign.  With this clause, Walker is enabling the creation of a vertical monopology in the energy field.  (Keep in mind that Walker already killed, killed, killed all hope for wind energy there with a bill with the most restrictive setbacks anywhere, and by far -- reducing the number of possible sites for turbines to four or fewer in all of Wisconsin.)

    Funny Union Guy (none / 0) (#24)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 08:55:28 PM EST
    .

    You left out the funniest part of his column.  Here it is:

    In New York City, the No. 2 guy in the fire department retired on a pension worth $242,000 a year. In New York State, a single official holding two jobs and one pension took in $641,000. A lieutenant with the Port Authority police retired with an annual pension of $196,767, and 738 of the city's teachers, principals and such have pensions worth more than $100,000 a year.

    Ho ho ho
    .

    Sounds like sour grapes (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 09:47:52 PM EST
    Sure there are a few extreme examples, but it sounds like Mr. Cohen is just upset that some retired cops and teachers make nearly as much as him.

    That's a shame.

    Parent

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 10:14:16 PM EST
    .

    It is completely appropriate for the state to tax the poor to provide gold plated pensions for the well to do.  At least as long as the check-off in their working years funded the Dem party.

    .

    Parent

    And, Abdul, what do you think about (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:05:32 PM EST
    the power plant sales ability that would be allowed under this now well-known Wisc. legislation that the Governor wants? Do you see any connection there with the Koch Bros. and who might obtain those plants? Any ideas about fair value? And, while on the subject of the Kochs: Are they receiving just compensation, are you satisfied with the amounts they make...too little or too much? (And, how does that relate to the average public employee in $$$)

    Parent
    May (none / 0) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 07:19:55 AM EST

    I think in may be abused.  OTOH, for some small assets, the cost of seeking bids may not be worth the effort.  

    A close on this eye will need to be kept to see if this is a real problem or only a potential problem.

    Parent

    I would hardly call power plants (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    "small assets".

    Except in emergency conditions, why should the WI Government sell any assets under no-bid conditions?

    Parent

    If the value of the asset (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:39:52 AM EST

    If the value of the asset is less than the cost of the bidding process, or if it is a rapidly wasting asset the bid process may not be appropriate.

    As an easy to understand but totally unlikely example consider an ice sculpture at the governor's 4th of July picnic for his office workers.  Putting it out for bids after the picnic with a say, 30 day notice and an inspection period is nuts.  

    But I agree this may be abused.  However, that does not mean it will be abused.  Wisconsin is not Chicago.


    Parent

    Re Assets (none / 0) (#44)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 11:09:52 AM EST

    If the value of the asset is less than the cost of the bidding process, or if it is a rapidly wasting asset the bid process may not be appropriate.

    Your example hardly can be stretched to encompass a power plant, unless it's an outdated source of pollution as well as power that would prove too costly to upgrade.

    However, that does not mean it will be abused.  Wisconsin is not Chicago.

    Dream on, corruption takes place all over the country, and, as in the stock market, past performance doesn't ensure future results.

    Parent

    Thats the point (none / 0) (#46)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    .
    Your example hardly can be stretched to encompass a power plant, unless it's an outdated source of pollution as well as power that would prove too costly to upgrade.

    The no bid policy may be appropriate for some assets but not others.  Those that make that decision bear close watching.

    Parent

    "Watch what we do, not what we say." (none / 0) (#52)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    Wrong again (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 07:42:45 AM EST
    But straw arguments are soooo much easier to make than real ones.

    Parent
    Real on every point (none / 0) (#36)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 08:37:51 AM EST

     1. The poor is Wisconsin all pay taxes, sales tax at a minimum.

     2. Anyone with a $100K+ pension can fairly be called "well to do."

     3. The check-off for state workers in Wisconsin has in fact funded in part Dem party causes and candidates.

    All real, no straw.

    Parent

    Big, old piles of misleading straw (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    I'm with you ...  It is completely appropriate for the state to tax the poor to provide gold plated pensions for the well to do.  At least as long as the check-off in their working years funded the Dem party.

    I never made that argument, because:

    1.  No kidding.  Everyone pays taxes on some level.  The state is taxing everyone to pay for the salaries, benefits and pensions of public employees - not just the poor.  In fact, the "poor" pay just a tiny fraction of the funds used to pay public employees.  But it does sound better when you try to claim they're "taxing the poor".  Good to hear of your newly discovered concern for "the poor".

    2.  The $100,000 pensions referenced in the article were the exceptions, not the rule.  They were also for public workers in NY city, not Wisconsin:

    The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) represents approximately 260,000 workers state-wide. The average pension of one of their members is approximately $14,000 per year. District Council 37 (DC37) represents approximately 120,000 New York City employees. Their average pension per member is approximately $18,000 per annum. In fact, the average New York City Employee Retirement System (NYCERS) pension is only $33,194 per year.

    Link

    Of course, those "gold-plated" plans are in NY city where the cost of living is much higher, not Wisconsin.  In Wisconsin, the average pension payout is @ $20,400, hardly a "gold-plated" plan.  Beyond that, the average public employee union member's pension (nationwide) is funded primarily (@80-85%) through employee contributions and investment income.  Can't find specific numbers for Wisconsin, but if it's close to the national average, that means that all taxpayers of Wisconsin pay @$3,000-$4,000 annually per retired worker.  Considering the lower salaries public employees earn, not a bad trade.

    3.  It's also funded Republican party candidates.  Strange, how you would omit that.

    Parent

    Looking at averages (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:23:39 PM EST

    Looking at averages tells us nothing about whether the public is being over charged for high end pensions.

    BTW, here is a list of over 9,000 California retirees that pull in over $100K

    You are quite right that every state taxes the poor, and every penny spent should IMHO be justified on that basis.

    It's also funded Republican party candidates.  Strange, how you would omit that.

    Well if the split were roughly 50/50 that would be one thing, but when it is closer to 95/5 then what you point out is more like the exception that proves the rule.

    Parent

    Not the point (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 03:50:41 PM EST
    It's not about the "high end", "gold-plated" exceptions to the rule, it's about what the vast majority of retired state employees receive.  Unless, of course, you're trying to paint a misleading picture ... like those who bring up New York and California pensions in a discussion about Wisconsin workers - states that, coincidentally, have the highest costs of living > higher salaries > higher pensions than other states, including Wisconsin.

    You are quite right that every state taxes the poor, and every penny spent should IMHO be justified on that basis.

    Ohhhhhhh .... it's for the pooooooooor!  Pfffftttt .... next we'll see some crocodile tears for puppies and children.

    Well if the split were roughly 50/50 that would be one thing, but when it is closer to 95/5 then what you point out is more like the exception that proves the rule.

    So it's not the check of for state workers that offends you ... it's that their giving their money to the wrong candidates.

    Shocker.

    Parent

    So are you saying that they (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Madeline on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:08:04 PM EST
    retire with too much?

    I get furious when remarks are made about people who work their entire lives at a job and then retire with benefits, what ever the amount.

    My Father worked as an anthracite coal miner for over thirty years and then was a union organizer for United Mine Workers.  His retirement pension was very good and he never paid a doctor or hospital bill during his working and retired lifetime.

    Guess what?  I think a guy who almost never missed a day of work, went a mile + underground five days a week for thirty years to dig coal to make millions for Frick mines deserves every cent.

    The same for the police, firemen, teachers and auto workers. The smirk seems to be ....well they're just teachers or fireman or (gasp) coalminers.

    People need to get over themselves.

    Parent

    There is quite a difference (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 08:57:49 AM EST

    First off I don't begrudge a penny of your fathers pay, pension, or benefits.

    The difference is the coal company is not a monopoly, and unionized coal industry is not a monopoly, and further no one can be forced to buy coal (unlike health insurance) yet.

    Both the union and the coal companies know that if wages and benefits get too far out of line their customers can go elsewhere.  Either to other coal providers, and to some extent to other fuels.

    The state of Wisconsin has a monopoly.  Plus, if you don't pay up, your assets will be seized and you will wind up in the slammer.  Further unlike the coal miners union, the public employees union can spend big bucks (often the biggest share in many states) to elect the guy on the other side of the negotiation table!  

    This is part of the reason private sector unionization is at about 7% and public sector is at about 35%.

    The mine workers have a market check on their demands.  The public employees unions on the other hand do not.  The only check is a political check.  That is what we are seeing in Wisconsin.

     

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 11:36:08 AM EST
    We could use the market theory Republicans love so much - if they put forth better policies that actually helped working people, then maybe those people would a)give more to Republican candidates or b) not feel the need to organize in the first place because their working conditions and compensation would be fair.

    All they are doing is going to the people that build the better mouse trap.

    Adam Smith would be proud.

    Parent

    Perhaps you missed it (none / 0) (#48)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:28:59 PM EST

    The state does not offer a product or service the consumer can decide to purchase or not purchase.  The state takes your money by force of law.  That is not market function.  

    Parent
    Missing the point (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    If the REPUBLICANS put forth better policies that would appeal to WORKERS (including state workers), then the WORKERS (as the consumers) could choose to buy a better product (i.e. vote for and give money to REPUBLICANS)

    The workers are the consumers.  The voters are consumers.

    The Republicans are like the Edsel - buy it if you have to, but there are better products out there.

    Parent

    so your point is (none / 0) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 02:20:07 PM EST

    that if Repubs were to offer even more gold plated perks, pay, benefits, and pensions than the Dems then the public employees would support the R's instead of the D's.

    Cool.  Other than say, a 35% sales tax do you see any drawbacks with that plan?

    Parent

    No. My point was (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    If Republicans actually did things to support middle and lower class (working) people with good policies, then maybe there wouldn't be a need for unions in the first place. Then Walker wouldn't be wasting tax dollars trying to union bust.

    Parent
    Well it would be wonderful (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 02:40:28 PM EST

    Well it would be wonderful if everyone could retire at 50 something on $100K a year.  But that requires magic or a public employee union not mere policy.

    Parent
    Deliberately obtuse (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 02:41:37 PM EST
    impossible (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 23, 2011 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#74)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 08:37:48 AM EST
    or citation for your 90K teachers' salary?

    This is a bit old, but I doubt the figures have gone up by much since they were compiled:

        / Home / Teacher Salary Information / United States

    Teacher Salary Information - United States

    Average teacher salaries. California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693. States joining California in the top tier were Michigan, at $54,020; Connecticut, at $53,962; New Jersey, at $53,872; and the District of Columbia, at $53,194.

    South Dakota had the lowest average salary in 2002-03, at $32,414. The other states in the bottom tier were Montana, at $35,754; Mississippi, at $35,135; North Dakota, at $33,869; and Oklahoma, at $33,277. Also in the lowest tier were the Virgin Islands, at $34,764; Guam at $34,738; and Puerto Rico, at $22,164.

    Click or World of Education Me