Sunday, June 13, 2010

Public-Sector Bailout? Why??

Oh, yah.

President Obama is pressing Congress to approve emergency aid money to support economic recovery and help avoid widespread layoffs of public workers, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

Congressional leaders received a letter from the president asking for almost $50 billion for distribution to state and local governments, saying that increased spending is “urgent and unavoidable,” the Post reported. The money would protect the jobs of teachers, police and firefighters.

Don't you just love that "teachers, police, and firefighters" line? He (and his SEIU co-conspirators) think you are stupid, stupid, stupid, and dumb besides.

Money's fungible. This first installment (what it really is) will fund busybody bureaucrats, not just 'teachers and cops.'

Screw 'em. It's about time that Less Government came into being.

HT: Ace


Deekaman said...

This is "nuckin' futs".

Grim said...

Actually, we probably really need to think about force reductions even among "teachers, firefighters and cops." Of these, teachers are the most important; the other two can be cut.

Volunteer firefighters are effective across much of the country; paid fire departments are a luxury in most places. We certainly do not need as many cops as we have. When the police are spending most of their time on 'traffic enforcement' and other revenue-generating techniques, aimed at the average citizen instead of criminal enterprise, there are too many cops in that community.

Deekaman said...

Teachers would be a better cut, considering decling instudent enrollments. Especially in the big cities.

Google it.

J. Strupp said...

The administration is showing consistancy here. Hopefully Congress does as well.

You don't increase Federal spending and cut state and local spending at the same time, thus partially or totally offsetting the benefit of your federal increase. That, I'm afraid, is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Almost as stupid as cutting all levels of government spending at the same time right now.

Deekaman said...

Why is cutting government at all levels stupid right now?

Considering that government workers produce zero to GDP, and there must be two taxpayers to cover the salary of one government worker, it seems to me a time of reduced private workforce would be the perfect time to reduce federal spending and the federal (and state)workforce.

neomom said...

I'd like to see unemployment increase another couple percent from paper-pushing AFSCME bureaucrats losing their jobs.

Paying their unemployment would be cheaper than their salaries, the benefit and pension liablilities would be reduced, and it might at least even out the number of private v public sector employees.

After watching hundreds lose jobs at my location and watching my salary go down while my taxes go up...

Yup - color me heartless.