Oh, Those Beautiful Sunsets

Sunsets have a way of reminding us, sometimes by their beauty, and sometimes by their thunder and lightning, that all days come to an end.

In the midst of an ever-increasing financial burden on all levels of government, we are somewhat belatedly becoming aware that our public sector - the government employees - have somehow contrived to get themselves immunized from real world economics with state and federal laws that guarantee some very good salaries and some out of this world pension and medical plans.

Perhaps part of the reason there was not quite enough opposition to Obamacare to derail it was that the public sector employees, who now number more than private sector employees nationally, couldn't care less about that issue because they are immune from the effects of practically all economic stress - in particular healthcare stress.

At our Republican club meeting last night we were discussing with some State Senate candidates their approach to solving the public sector employee "problem" just mentioned. I made the point that the unions for the fire workers and police had the legislature conveniently vote in some regulations that establish rules for compensation and retirement which, as I said, are out of this world. Local municipalities are groaning under the weight of burdensome retirement and medical plans that are even now at the point of unsustainability and promise in just a few years to totally consume the entire budgets of some cities. California, that poster child for big government run amok, is virtually in that situation today, as is New Jersey and a number of other states. It obviously is not a local problem; it is epidemic.

In our discussion, one of the candidates who has served in the state legislature for about ten years, made the point that we cannot abrogate the pensions that we promised to workers - all state workers too - when we hired them. That statement sounded balanced and fair to me at the time. She suggested that we ought to draw a line in the sand now, though, and begin to plan and budget our way out of the dead end street we find ourselves on.

Reflecting on that statement about "promises", I began to suspect that at the time the "promises" of rich, luxurious benefits were enacted into law, there were already some people who were promising lush support for the legislators who would vote in such largesse. In other words, the promises were on the order of bribes for campaign funds. Now of course we cannot prove that, but knowing human nature, and especially the corruptibility that resides in all human hearts, including mine, I would not be surprised that I have hit the nail on the head. Campaign support from public sector unions at a certain point in time, before the benefit costs began to run away, might have seemed like a simple thing to vote for - a kind of "no-brainer", and no one was thinking of the future effects of such legislation. And after all, don't public workers, especially those involved in safety, deserve to receive good compensation and benefits?

So the "promises" made were made at best unwise, and at worse, made as a quid pro quo for some political  support. Perhaps that is "politics as usual" but it is bad public policy at any time to benefit one special group at the expense of all the taxpayers.

The Police and Fire workers' unions have gotten themselves a deal that is much better than the free marketplace would pay them and they are not about to let it slip. Any candidate that is unwise enough to stand against them is sure to find him or her-self on the receiving end of a vitriolic negative campaign come re-election time. And woe unto those who are running against the unions for their first office.

But something has to give.

The liabilities are already consuming more than fifty percent of some municipal budgets, and those expenditures  are non-discretionary: the cities must pay or be in legal default. Why? Because the State legislature passed a law mandating it that way.

So what is the solution? For one, the law needs to be repealed or modified so that the workers have to negotiate with the municipalities in good faith, not with the legislative gun to their heads.

The candidates' suggestion of drawing a line in the sand and curtailing further entitlements is a great idea too, and would be something that reasonable people of all party stripes could agree upon.

Also, I suggest that a general principle be adopted that all regulations - across the board - have sunset provisions embedded into them. That would cause a lot of scurrilous legislation and regulation to simply die a natural death. We all die some time; why not government laws and regulations too?

As for sun-setting special privileges and exemptions from market forces, who says that commitments made unwisely are not subject to being re-opened and examined in the light of new circumstances? When was it ever wise to vote for lush pension plans for privileged state employees? How can that ever have been good public policy?

And that is why I favor creating a good sunset on unbridled benefits to certain privileged job categories. They never should have had it so good, and those who voted for those laws did not represent the best interests of all our citizens. We all desire to see a good sunset  to our fiscal problems. We just have to have the courage and wisdom to see it done.