For a fun experiment try calling one of the social welfare office phone numbers and "Listen to the menu as our options have changed." Every menu of options takes you down another level of bureaucracy, and you will be able to visualize all those ladies with long fingernails sitting at their desks typing and moving papers back and forth. As you proceed down levels of menus the picture spreads out before you, so precisely delineated in this article. A permanent welfare state, riding on the backs of the working class. They all need to justify their employment, so there is no incentive to fix anything.
I was told by a friend once that her husband , who is a UCSB management employee ,deserves his outrageous pension because he sacrificed his earning years to be in Education ! By being in the public sector, and not the private sector , he made a sacrifice! In retirement his pension is $150k a year. What private sector job affords this type of pension!
Private sector pensions: Social Security, 401K -employer matching funds, IRA, personal savings, annuities and investments. Long-range planning and personal responsibility.
Democracy is working exactly as it is supposed to. The voters have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. It tastes good. They want more and will vote accordingly. It is poitical suicide to propose cutting any public benefit. Look at how DeSantis was excoriated for proposing changes to Social Security which are necessary to ensure "solvency" of the pyramid scheme. And this dependency on government is a natural outcome of the destruction of the family. Who took care of the elderly before medicare (1965) or social security (1935)? The root of the problem is the "solvency" of the nuclear family. Fewer people are getting married. Divorce is on the rise. Abortion stops family creation before it has even started denying a life and denying the parents a reason to grow up and be responsible. It is easier to be married to the government. Uncle Sam is now daddy Sam and his wife momma Samantha.
Make anything but in-person on Election Day voting illegal. Votes tabulated by at least two machines provided by opposing sides and use of standard computer block chain error correction (ballots counted by two separate systems and compared. All anomalies (where the two machines disagree or can not read are removed from totals flagged and set aside)
We Americans enjoy a pretty high standard of living. I think asking us to show up and do this one thing every year is not too heavy a burden.
Before I get the inevitable “what about this group or that group who can’t do this one simple thing known for years in advance; every mathematician knows those groups are statistically irrelevant, but they are used to introduce distrust into the system.
Our forefathers who fought & died for this country, literally, on US soil.
They fought to remove a tyrannical government. They never intended for large government.
They knew government is a cancer that grows and spreads. Government was supposed to be a personal assistant to the people, employed by the people, reporting to the people. The People are the Boss.
People got lazy and government convinced them they needed more government, quietly, behind the scenes growing like a cancer.
Here we are.
Fire the government, just like that bad assistant who thinks they know it all and dismisses you, the Boss.
Why are government employees allowed to run, oversee and adjudicate our elections, when they have a direct and immediate self-interest in election outcomes. This is also a huge conflict of interests.
By your logic, I guess no one should be able to vote. Politician X promises to increase the child tax credit if elected - oops, I guess anyone with children or capable of having children can't vote due to the conflict of interest. Politician Y says she will encourage more people to shop downtown - oops, any downtown business owners can't vote. Politician Z says he will save Social Security from benefit cuts while raising the retirement age for younger workers - oops, anyone over age 62 can't vote.
You have to be careful about all of this. Which is why campaign disclosures and recusing oneself when voting where there is a self-interest remain critical parts of any elected official's duties.
And not let cute-sounding political action committees disguise more incestuous political relationships. This is all part of being an informed voter. And an ethical elected official.
I disagree that is “my logic” but I understand your point. I just don’t think those are valid analogies. Logically they are what is known as false equivalence.
In none of your cases is anyone directly employed by the very people we all vote for to administer.
A better analogy would be a school that lets the children vote themselves as principal or a prison that lets the inmates vote on their warden and sentence lengths.
C'mon Eric. Your analogies are ridiculous. Why don't you tell all your friends who are teachers and police officers (all of whom get government pensions) that you want to take away their right to vote, because you think they are like children and criminals. See how that goes over.
And before you tell me that you weren't talking about teachers and cops, go back and look at your original comment. You said, "Why are government employees allowed to vote?" Perhaps it would be helpful if you were more specific about the government employees that you want to disenfranchise.
Doug, So lets see here, from my what I read of yours here, these are more false equivalencies and mischaracterizations of what I wrote, and we can now add ad hominem attacks, and building a straw-man argument to your logic fallacies.
I dont mind your point of view and would not call it ridiculous, it is expected and a commonly held belief. (although I have heard it before and rebutted it easily)
In everyday life, people are not allowed to vote for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is conflict of interests. It is a simple compact between the citizenry of a democracy and its elected governing elite. If you are a constituent of something, you get to vote on your governing body, if you are part of the governing body, you should not be allowed to partake in any referendum on yourself.
This is not disenfranchisement. It is just common sense.
Alexander Fraser Tytler (1791):
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Government retirement programs were modified in the 1950's In order to be competitive with the private sector, which was 33% unionized. Government employees now receive both a pension and social security because under President Reagan the "old" system was dismantled so that government employees would have to pay into social security, which was to offset the decrease in their future pension checks. President Reagan also set in motion efforts to "de-unionize" the American workforce, thereby increasing dividends to shareholders and CEO bonuses while decreasing pay and benefits to workers. President Reagan did the same to military pay and retirement benefits. It was all part of his "tickle down" B.S. We all know how that turned out for the shrinking middle class and wage slaves who now have to work two jobs and can't afford to live in the communities where they work. EVERY American worker is entitled to the pay and benefit structure that government employees are receiving -- just like it was in the 1950's. Stop your whining and join a UNION, demand "Medicare for All", paid family leave, paid vacations, and free college tuition -- or you could just move to Canada or Europe, where workers already enjoy all those benefits.
Run the numbers for us, Stephen. Don't just make OPM demands. The better argument is bringing government employment back in line with the private sector, since government employment is dependent solely on tax dollars. Whereas private sector employment at least trades value between buyers and sellers.
Europeans laugh when they see what the US welfare system supports because their own generous social systems are (1) dependent on US supporting their NATO defense; and (2) extremely high taxes used to self-fund their own social benefits. The do not support a massive pure welfare class. Take away the US current welfare system so that people do work for their benefits, instead now generations merely depending on government handouts and you will see the US come more in line with the EU.
Medicare today is no panacea - it is expensive and access to actual services is increasingly more limited every day. You need to define "health care" first with total precision, before you demand we write a blank checks for Medicare for All. You cannot leave rationing out of the equation.
Unions in the US so far have pretty much decimated their own private sector industries, to the point US tax payers now must bail out their failed private pension funds. Unions in the government sector have no place at all. We are harvesting their bitter fruit as we speak, again having destroyed their underlying entities too.
Public education at every level being the most glaring example, but health care and government services running close behind. Can you really divorce open borders and the vast increase in union member government services that open borders has now required?
Back to the drawing board for your grand schemes instead of these patent panaceas, is all I can say. Think more in terms of what you demand as commodities to be bought and sold; not as rights that someone else pays for.
As someone who served in the military from 1981-2008, our pay was drastically increased under Reagan. The slightly reduced “high 3” retirement came long after Reagan left office. Our military was weak and hollowed out prior to the Reagan build up.
It would be enlightening if we could break down the "health care employment sector", between those primarily funded by government health care plans (taxpayer funded) and those funded by private sector plans. This would enlarge the numbers tacitly employed by the government. . The high level of taxpayer-funded direct and indirect government services do make us a company town. The consistent outcomes of our local elections bears this out.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Andy provides a well presented case. Congratulations, again, Andy.
As I understand the membership numbers, there are now over 6,000 members avidly reading the input articles from many talented members, most weeks, if not every week. Mostly, they inevitably point in the same direction.
What purpose is there , other than to respond to the irritability from Nancy Freeman's pen?
Is there an action plan waiting in the wings?
Could Santa Barbara Current evolve beyond an interesting talking shop?
I very much like the articles, feedback, responses and comments on this Currents site, but it’s THE most difficult, convoluted format I’ve ever seen. I thought I registered to be able to contribute but all I get are referrals to ’Substack’ - whatever that is. Isn’t there a ‘Link’ to a page where I can contribute an article? I’d love to sort all this out but nobody responds to my emails. Would very much appreciate any advice. Thanks, Earl Brown - ebrown@sky44.com
Eric, you are thinking outside the current box; outside the current Big Government Stockholm Syndrome box so many now feel.
Keep it up. It is the time, and now the right place, to ask these questions. Particularly by younger people who are now stuck paying for prior decades of government expansion, imposed by those who did not ask these important questions.
For a fun experiment try calling one of the social welfare office phone numbers and "Listen to the menu as our options have changed." Every menu of options takes you down another level of bureaucracy, and you will be able to visualize all those ladies with long fingernails sitting at their desks typing and moving papers back and forth. As you proceed down levels of menus the picture spreads out before you, so precisely delineated in this article. A permanent welfare state, riding on the backs of the working class. They all need to justify their employment, so there is no incentive to fix anything.
I was told by a friend once that her husband , who is a UCSB management employee ,deserves his outrageous pension because he sacrificed his earning years to be in Education ! By being in the public sector, and not the private sector , he made a sacrifice! In retirement his pension is $150k a year. What private sector job affords this type of pension!
Stop the bleeding!!
"What private sector job affords this type of pension!"
Private Sector: "What's a pension??"
Private sector pensions: Social Security, 401K -employer matching funds, IRA, personal savings, annuities and investments. Long-range planning and personal responsibility.
I know, just trying to be funny …guess it landed flat 🤦😂
You launched a good teaching moment. No problem.
Democracy is working exactly as it is supposed to. The voters have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. It tastes good. They want more and will vote accordingly. It is poitical suicide to propose cutting any public benefit. Look at how DeSantis was excoriated for proposing changes to Social Security which are necessary to ensure "solvency" of the pyramid scheme. And this dependency on government is a natural outcome of the destruction of the family. Who took care of the elderly before medicare (1965) or social security (1935)? The root of the problem is the "solvency" of the nuclear family. Fewer people are getting married. Divorce is on the rise. Abortion stops family creation before it has even started denying a life and denying the parents a reason to grow up and be responsible. It is easier to be married to the government. Uncle Sam is now daddy Sam and his wife momma Samantha.
A modest proposal:
Make anything but in-person on Election Day voting illegal. Votes tabulated by at least two machines provided by opposing sides and use of standard computer block chain error correction (ballots counted by two separate systems and compared. All anomalies (where the two machines disagree or can not read are removed from totals flagged and set aside)
We Americans enjoy a pretty high standard of living. I think asking us to show up and do this one thing every year is not too heavy a burden.
Before I get the inevitable “what about this group or that group who can’t do this one simple thing known for years in advance; every mathematician knows those groups are statistically irrelevant, but they are used to introduce distrust into the system.
Our forefathers who fought & died for this country, literally, on US soil.
They fought to remove a tyrannical government. They never intended for large government.
They knew government is a cancer that grows and spreads. Government was supposed to be a personal assistant to the people, employed by the people, reporting to the people. The People are the Boss.
People got lazy and government convinced them they needed more government, quietly, behind the scenes growing like a cancer.
Here we are.
Fire the government, just like that bad assistant who thinks they know it all and dismisses you, the Boss.
Why are government employees allowed to vote?
I know it sounds crazy to ask this obvious question, but is it? Is it really?
Why are government employees allowed to run, oversee and adjudicate our elections, when they have a direct and immediate self-interest in election outcomes. This is also a huge conflict of interests.
Yes, it is crazy to ask this question.
Doug, do you mean that it’s a crazy question or that I am crazy for asking?
Just curious 😃
It seems to me that there is an obvious conflict of interest here. Where am I wrong?
By your logic, I guess no one should be able to vote. Politician X promises to increase the child tax credit if elected - oops, I guess anyone with children or capable of having children can't vote due to the conflict of interest. Politician Y says she will encourage more people to shop downtown - oops, any downtown business owners can't vote. Politician Z says he will save Social Security from benefit cuts while raising the retirement age for younger workers - oops, anyone over age 62 can't vote.
You have to be careful about all of this. Which is why campaign disclosures and recusing oneself when voting where there is a self-interest remain critical parts of any elected official's duties.
And not let cute-sounding political action committees disguise more incestuous political relationships. This is all part of being an informed voter. And an ethical elected official.
I disagree that is “my logic” but I understand your point. I just don’t think those are valid analogies. Logically they are what is known as false equivalence.
In none of your cases is anyone directly employed by the very people we all vote for to administer.
A better analogy would be a school that lets the children vote themselves as principal or a prison that lets the inmates vote on their warden and sentence lengths.
Thanks for debating it with me!
C'mon Eric. Your analogies are ridiculous. Why don't you tell all your friends who are teachers and police officers (all of whom get government pensions) that you want to take away their right to vote, because you think they are like children and criminals. See how that goes over.
And before you tell me that you weren't talking about teachers and cops, go back and look at your original comment. You said, "Why are government employees allowed to vote?" Perhaps it would be helpful if you were more specific about the government employees that you want to disenfranchise.
Doug, So lets see here, from my what I read of yours here, these are more false equivalencies and mischaracterizations of what I wrote, and we can now add ad hominem attacks, and building a straw-man argument to your logic fallacies.
I dont mind your point of view and would not call it ridiculous, it is expected and a commonly held belief. (although I have heard it before and rebutted it easily)
In everyday life, people are not allowed to vote for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is conflict of interests. It is a simple compact between the citizenry of a democracy and its elected governing elite. If you are a constituent of something, you get to vote on your governing body, if you are part of the governing body, you should not be allowed to partake in any referendum on yourself.
This is not disenfranchisement. It is just common sense.
Alexander Fraser Tytler (1791):
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Government retirement programs were modified in the 1950's In order to be competitive with the private sector, which was 33% unionized. Government employees now receive both a pension and social security because under President Reagan the "old" system was dismantled so that government employees would have to pay into social security, which was to offset the decrease in their future pension checks. President Reagan also set in motion efforts to "de-unionize" the American workforce, thereby increasing dividends to shareholders and CEO bonuses while decreasing pay and benefits to workers. President Reagan did the same to military pay and retirement benefits. It was all part of his "tickle down" B.S. We all know how that turned out for the shrinking middle class and wage slaves who now have to work two jobs and can't afford to live in the communities where they work. EVERY American worker is entitled to the pay and benefit structure that government employees are receiving -- just like it was in the 1950's. Stop your whining and join a UNION, demand "Medicare for All", paid family leave, paid vacations, and free college tuition -- or you could just move to Canada or Europe, where workers already enjoy all those benefits.
Run the numbers for us, Stephen. Don't just make OPM demands. The better argument is bringing government employment back in line with the private sector, since government employment is dependent solely on tax dollars. Whereas private sector employment at least trades value between buyers and sellers.
Europeans laugh when they see what the US welfare system supports because their own generous social systems are (1) dependent on US supporting their NATO defense; and (2) extremely high taxes used to self-fund their own social benefits. The do not support a massive pure welfare class. Take away the US current welfare system so that people do work for their benefits, instead now generations merely depending on government handouts and you will see the US come more in line with the EU.
Medicare today is no panacea - it is expensive and access to actual services is increasingly more limited every day. You need to define "health care" first with total precision, before you demand we write a blank checks for Medicare for All. You cannot leave rationing out of the equation.
Unions in the US so far have pretty much decimated their own private sector industries, to the point US tax payers now must bail out their failed private pension funds. Unions in the government sector have no place at all. We are harvesting their bitter fruit as we speak, again having destroyed their underlying entities too.
Public education at every level being the most glaring example, but health care and government services running close behind. Can you really divorce open borders and the vast increase in union member government services that open borders has now required?
Back to the drawing board for your grand schemes instead of these patent panaceas, is all I can say. Think more in terms of what you demand as commodities to be bought and sold; not as rights that someone else pays for.
As someone who served in the military from 1981-2008, our pay was drastically increased under Reagan. The slightly reduced “high 3” retirement came long after Reagan left office. Our military was weak and hollowed out prior to the Reagan build up.
It would be enlightening if we could break down the "health care employment sector", between those primarily funded by government health care plans (taxpayer funded) and those funded by private sector plans. This would enlarge the numbers tacitly employed by the government. . The high level of taxpayer-funded direct and indirect government services do make us a company town. The consistent outcomes of our local elections bears this out.
xlnt...
Alexander Fraser Tytler (1791):
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Andy provides a well presented case. Congratulations, again, Andy.
As I understand the membership numbers, there are now over 6,000 members avidly reading the input articles from many talented members, most weeks, if not every week. Mostly, they inevitably point in the same direction.
What purpose is there , other than to respond to the irritability from Nancy Freeman's pen?
Is there an action plan waiting in the wings?
Could Santa Barbara Current evolve beyond an interesting talking shop?
I very much like the articles, feedback, responses and comments on this Currents site, but it’s THE most difficult, convoluted format I’ve ever seen. I thought I registered to be able to contribute but all I get are referrals to ’Substack’ - whatever that is. Isn’t there a ‘Link’ to a page where I can contribute an article? I’d love to sort all this out but nobody responds to my emails. Would very much appreciate any advice. Thanks, Earl Brown - ebrown@sky44.com
Follow up crazy question to my previous crazy question:
Why are taxes collected from government employees?
If all of their income is paid from tax revenue, why not just pay them less and avoid the bookkeeping expense?
I know I know …I’m crazy 🤪
Eric, you are thinking outside the current box; outside the current Big Government Stockholm Syndrome box so many now feel.
Keep it up. It is the time, and now the right place, to ask these questions. Particularly by younger people who are now stuck paying for prior decades of government expansion, imposed by those who did not ask these important questions.