Private Sector Parasites

Public Work Should Be Done By The Public Sector

A recent article - Waukesha's Zignego Co. lowest bidder at $87M for Highway 50 road project - made me again think of the delusional efficient private sector viewpoint. 

Conservatives and wannabe-economists have, for years, pounded the private sector efficiency drumbeat. Sadly, this perspective is as misguided today as it's ever been.

For the majority of private sector actors, the modus operandi has been to cut corners, pay workers less and/or to simply not do certain tasks altogether. 

For Further Reading:

The Lean Efficiency (And Persistence) Of Private Sector Lies

Privatization, Increased Costs And Income Inequality

Fizzle for the buck

Why public–private partnerships or other ‘innovative’ financing of infrastructure will not save taxpayers money

And The Winner Is....The Public Sector

Myth: The Private Sector is More Efficient Than the Public Sector

Why taxpayers are getting a bargain from public-sector workers

Buzzwords Are Not Public Policy or We've Heard Enough From So-Called Business Experts

More cliched economic jargon from error-prone businessmen. 

Biden Needs Some Business Experts

The article moans, "The new administration does not have a lot of chops when it comes to job creation. That’s largely in the domain of the private sector. Biden and his crew are loaded with experience in managing the government, but are extremely shallow in knowing what to do to help the private sector become vibrant again. Remember, all tax revenues come directly or indirectly from dynamism in the private sector. Most companies deserve to be revered for providing jobs and tax revenues, but that is not the mindset of the progressives in the Democratic Party. Their proclivity is regulation. Common sense regulation is a necessity in any economy, but more important is turning entrepreneurs loose to reinvent the economy. They are the job creators, not the government."

There is so much wrong here, it's hard to know where to begin. There are so many regurgitated conservative falsehoods in this right-wing word salad, it really does make the mind spin. For someone who can occasionally make reasonable sounding arguments, John Torinus, more often, just parrots typical Republican talking-points. 

Biden has been working for the citizens his entire adult life. He's plenty familiar with job creation. Republicans are the party that has left this country in recession after recession over the past few decades. And, it has been the Democrats who enacted targeted policies to help pull the country out. Biden was Vice President during the Obama Administration, in case Mr. Torinus has forgotten that fact. 

What did Obama and Biden do? There has not been a consistent job market expansion on record, dating back to 1939, that lasted longer than the expansion during their administration. Job growth was faster than population growth—a key measure of a healthy job market expansion. The typical weekly pay of U.S. workers has been increasing since early 2013 and re The ACA made it possible for more than 20 million individuals to afford health insurance and decreased the share of Americans without health insurance to an all-time low.ached its highest level on record, dating back to 1979, at the end of 2016. They inherited a deficit that claimed 9.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2009. By FY 2016, the deficit had fallen to less than one-third of that, at 3.2 percent of GDP.

Seems like they know something about job creation, reinventing the economy and helping the private sector be vibrant.

And this "dynamism in the private sector" and "turning entrepreneurs loose" are, as Joe Biden would say, a bunch of malarkey. This country has been cutting taxes and deregulating the past 40 years. If the private sector entrepreneurs are so damn dynamic, why does the economy keep falling back into recession when we allow Republicans control of the government?

It's long overdue for the private sector knows it all, government needs to get out of the way-gang to go away. The public sector employs over 20 millions people. The public sector accounts for nearly half of the entire economy. This idea, pushed by Republicans for decades, that government is inept and wasteful is wrong. If anything, the private sector is the wasteful and inefficient actor. Not to mention the fact that the private sector is also selfish and greedy.

Private retirement account fees are drastically higher than public pension fees or Social Security fees. Much of the medical advancements we see are due to university research and the National Institutes of Health. Study after study has shown that public infrastrucutre projects are cheaper when done by unionized public workers, rather than being bid out to private corporations.

 

So, please, Republicans, conservatives, dynamic private sector know-it-alls, please step aside and let the adults in the Democratic party save the country from your destructive and misguided ramblings once again.

Midweek Reading

State Sees Biggest Hike In New COVID-19 Hospital Admissions In 30 Days

Georgia Republicans cancel election for state Supreme Court, so governor can appoint a Republican

Too Big to Fail: The Entire Private Sector

Will Northwoods Vacations Spread COVID-19?

Covid-19 cases surge in some states as Americans celebrate Memorial Day weekend

The Strange Case of Ron Johnson

White House Press Secretary: Golf Is Not OK While U.S. Mourns (Trump Exempt)

Milwaukee County trending upward in counts of Covid-19 patients in hospitals, official says

Scott Walker has a plan to make everything worse

Investors Don’t Share Trump’s Scorn for Blue States

The "Friendly" Skies?

For Further Reading:
Airline Deregulation #Fail

Flying Blind: Airline Deregulation Reconsidered

Government Continues To Shed Workers

Year-over-year change in employment.

[source]

Income Inequality

America Is The Only Rich Country Without Guaranteed Paid Vacation Or Holidays

American Workers Losing Ground On Wages
Globalisation Isn't Just About Profits. It's About Taxes Too
Median CEO Pay Rises To $9.7 Million In 2012
1 Chart Reveals How Unfair The U.S. Tax System Has Become

Public & Private Sector Payroll Jobs

When The Rich Get Richer, Taxes Go Lower

A Steaming Pile Of Boldness

The Journal Sentinel is back pushing Walker's venture capital slush fund, Legislature Should Establish A Fund For Venture Capital.

Wisconsin politicians continue to argue about how many jobs have been created on Gov. Scott Walker's watch - and even how to count those jobs. This was inevitable, of course, given the governor's promise that 250,000 jobs would be created during his first term.

But rather than argue over numbers, how about focusing on policies that might make a difference?

Yes, just forget about Walker's (completely ridiculous) promise of 250,000 jobs, which undoubtedly helped win him the election. We don't want to actually evaluate politicians on the things they've said.

The whole article is a well-worn regurgitation of cliches regarding the magic that is venture capital.

With job growth and income sluggish in the state, we continue to believe the best answer is unleashing good ideas that could be turned into young companies that will employ people. Research by the Ewing and Marion Kauffman Foundation a couple of years ago found that between 1977 and 2005, existing companies lost about 1 million jobs a year while new companies added an average of 3 million jobs. Since 2008, the pace of hiring is stronger in companies that are two years or younger, Kauffman found. 

Simply put, we need more entrepreneurs, and we need to figure out how to mentor them and invest in their ideas.

Yes, we need more entrepreneurs. We need more jobs. Bold insight.

The pace of hiring may be strong in young companies, but what they also fail to mention is that the pace of firing is also higher amongst younger companies.

The article then (to supposedly support a venture capital fund) points to UW-Madison's Research Park, and UW-Milwaukee's and the Medical College's increased research, which has created jobs. Yet, this seems like more of a substantiation for investment in our universities. Is the Journal implying we should spend public dollars for private benefit? Should we continue the process whereby our public sector provides tax credits, other funding, university R&D, and a host of other giveaways, in which private entities get to reap the majority of the rewards? Here's a novel idea, how about public investment with public rewards.

But young companies need a continuum of support - from the early going when the entrepreneur mortgages her house to get started to the first "angel" investors who take notice to the point where larger infusions of money are needed from venture capitalists. And in Wisconsin, there long has been a gulf between the typical angel investor round and the venture capital round.

What did companies do before venture capital?

Despite a good fourth quarter, Wisconsin attracted only $95 million last year, according to the MoneyTree Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the National Venture Capital Association. Nationwide, venture capitalists invested $26.5 billion.

What is the average amount states attract? Where does Wisconsin rank among the states in attracting capital?

Another article from the Journal notes, "State companies pulled in more than $95 million during the full year, up 31% from 2011, when they raised about $73 million of venture capital...Nationally, venture capital investment declined for the first time in three years. Venture capitalists invested $26.5 billion in 3,698 deals in 2012, a 10% decrease in dollars from a year earlier."

So, nationally venture capital is declining, yet over the past year it increased 31% in Wisconsin. Seems like money has already decided Wisconsin is a decent investment, even without the State providing additional funding.

The Journal continued, "But while $25 million is a start, it's probably only a down payment. The state needs something closer to $150 million, perhaps funded over several budget cycles, to attract the interest of top venture capital funds. "If the state really wants to get to critical mass, then we're going to need more than $25 million," said Tom Still, president of the Wisconsin Technology Council and the Wisconsin Innovation Network. The "Be Bold Wisconsin Prosperity Strategy" report, which grew out of a series of economic summits around the state in 2010, called for an even larger commitment."

We need to put up at least $25 million and also some type of continuing commitment? If we applied the same amount to public works - infrastructure, green buildings, energy grid, sewage and water systems, etc. - wouldn't that just as efficiently and effectively ignite the economy and put people back to work? And, we wouldn't have to worry about the speculative nature and the whims of the private sector. Not to mention, we could actually ensure these were good paying jobs.

Finally, it seems rather odd that the Journal Sentinel and the Republican class-war criminals were so quick to talk about a Wisconsin's (phony) budget crisis, how we were broke, how public workers had bankrupted us and caused the recession. Yet, in their next breath, they cackle about spending on sport stadiums, venture capital, and numerous other ways of funneling public dollars to obscure private sector schemes. Yes, we're broke, until the power-brokers whom are already garnering most of society's gains decide they want more.

For Further Reading:
Casino Capitalism
Cut Out The (Private Sector) Middle Man
Deja Vu
Fund Fail
Haplessly Venturing
Risky Business
Something Venture, (Virtually) Nothing Gained
Venturing Aimlessly
Venturing Wisconsin's Money

State/Local Versus Private-Sector Workers

State/Local Versus Private Sector Workers 

Putting aside job security, the calculations show that state/local benefits nearly offset the private sector wage premium, but compensation in the public sector is 4 percent less than that in the private sector

Key findings:

• State and local workers have a wage penalty of 9.5 percent.
• Pension contributions and retiree health insurance help close the gap.
• Total compensation for public sector workers is about 4 percent less than that in the private sector.

Update:

Just wondering why these studies (like the one above) - the ones where academics actually look at the numbers and report on such - rarely are discussed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Every anecdotal story and "gut" feeling was paraded out in their reporting during Scott Walker's vilifying of public workers. The claims of excessive pay, overly generous benefits, etc. This was all reported as a given, a known fact.

It was, and is, nothing of the sort. Studies refuted it then, and they still refute it now.

Public workers are a bargain. Private workers doing the same work would cost you (at least) 4% more.

Since Obama

Jobs: Bush Versus Obama

From Think Progress, "Private sector job creation under President Obama has far exceeded private sector job creation under President Bush. 40 months into his presidential term, there are currently more private sector jobs in the economy than when Obama came into office. At the same point in President Bush’s term, the total number of private sector jobs was still down 1.7 percent from where it began.

The numbers are even starker when measuring each president’s record from the moment job creation returned. Private sector job creation returned in February of 2010, the 13th month of President Obama’s term. Since then, the economy has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4 percent increase.

Under President Bush, the economy stopped shedding private sector jobs in July of 2003, fully 30 months into his administration. From that point until May of 2004, the economy added just 1.5 million private sector jobs, an increase of only 1.4 percent."

Andrew Leonard notes, "But the real eye-opener comes when we compare Obama’s numbers to George W. Bush’s. In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000! The only thing that saved Bush’s first term from being a complete economic disaster, in terms of employment, was robust public sector growth: The economy added 900,000 government jobs. One wonders: Without the massive growth in the public sector during Bush’s first term, would he have been reelected?"

The only thing that didn't make Bush's first term job creation numbers a complete disaster was the growth of public workers - the government. Obama accomplished much better total job growth in his first term, even with an unprecedented decline in the number of public workers.

And, in general, the economy creates more jobs under Democrats - 42 million during Democratic administrations versus 24 million during Republican administrations.

Whichever period we choose to dissect, we can see the country is better off under the Democrats. Plus, the idea that President Obama has performed poorly is highly misguided. No doubt, we'd all rather see more robust job creation, to bring the unemployment rate down toward a more respectable 5 or 6 percent. But, if the millions of jobs created in Obama's first term is some colossal failure, then the nonexistent job growth during Bush's first term is the absolute worst performance we've ever seen. This is surely not an endorsement for giving the White House back to the Republicans whom have performed so comparatively poorly.

So, if the economy is the important issue we all should be focused on during this election (as Republicans seem to indicate), based on their past performance versus the current President's performance, the only choice is Barack Obama.

NOT Fannie, Freddie, the CRA, Nor The Poor

Republicans have been somewhat successful in diffusing the idea that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, and poor people were responsible for the housing bubble. Thus, Republicans are winning some elections, and our casino capitalism is still running amok.

Yet Ned Gramlich, of the Federal Reserve, found, "Banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found fault rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgage rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business." Russel Kroszner, also of the Federal Reserve, states, "Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market."

As Paul Krugman explained, "The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom, which was overwhelmingly driven by loan originators not subject to the Act...During those same years [the middle years of the naughties], Fannie and Freddie were sidelined by Congressional pressure, and saw a drop in their share of securitization."

Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner discovered, "The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis."

Kenneth Cooper notes, "In his new study on racial-ethnic lending patterns, Jourdain-Earl finds that Federal Reserve data show that 84 percent of mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 2004 and 2009 had been made to whites, with 8 percent going to Hispanics and 5 percent to African-Americans. For loans to comply with CRA, 68 percent went to whites, 15 percent to Hispanics and 12 percent to African-Americans—hardly enough volume from minorities to cause the housing crisis."

"Overall, loans originated for private-label securitization have defaulted at about six times the rate of Fannie and Freddie loans," informs David Min.

For Further Reading:

An Obtuse & Deceptive Accounting

The Banker, In The Office, With The CDO

Faulty Conclusions Based On Shoddy Foundations

FCIC Investigation, Wallison on the GSEs and the Conservative Echo Chamber

Did Liberals Cause the Subprime Crisis?

It Was Wall Street

Things Everyone In Chicago Knows

The definitive debunking of the "CRA, Fannie, Freddie, and the poor are at fault" claims can be read in Why Wallison Is Wrong About The Genesis Of The U.S Housing Crisis.

Is There Anything A Stadium Can't Solve?

We're broke. (Well, at least that's what Scott Walker keeps telling us.)

What better time to build a few hundred million dollar stadium?

Yes, we're no longer just considering upgrading the Bradley Center.

The power brokers and urban growth coalition of Milwaukee are scheming to build a completely new stadium on vacant Park East land.

No one would love to see development along this corridor more than me, but as I (and much more rigorous analysts before me) have written many times, stadiums are not economic catalysts.

We have no money for public workers, parks, trains, schools, green energy, or numerous other projects that would benefit the majority of citizens. But we have more than enough cash for tax cuts, bailouts, stadiums, and any other scams well-connected private-sector actors can imagine.

You may be out of work, but at least the Bucks will have a shiny new stadium to play in. Hooray!

For Further Reading:
Basket Case
Buck The System
Buck You
Economic Engine Or Albatross?
Overblown Bradley Center Impacts
Stadium Rip-off(s)
Stadium Swindle 
The Time Is Now?

Democrats Getting Republicans Out Of Debt (Again)

From U.S Debt Load Falling At Fastest Pace Since 1950s:

• Four years after the storm hit, the economy is still deleveraging. And it’s very hard for any economy to grow when everyone is focused on increasing their savings.
• Total domestic — public and private — debt as a share of the economy has declined for 12 quarters in a row after surging over the previous decade.
• As much as we hear politicians, pundits, tea-party patriots and the Congressional Budget Office obsessing about government debt, it was excessive private debt — not public debt — that caused the 2008 financial meltdown. And it was private debt — some of it since transferred to the public — that lies behind the current European debt crisis. 
• In fact, since the recession ended in June 2009, total U.S. debt has risen at the slowest pace since they began keeping records in the early 1950s. 
• The ratio of total debt to gross domestic product has fallen from 3.73 times GDP to 3.36 times.

The Only Responsible Choice: Tom Barrett

Scott Walker's primary tactic for the recall election is to smear Tom Barrett on unemployment and taxes in Milwaukee. The unemployment rate has increased and taxes have gone up under Barrett. Let's ignore the fact that unemployment is up everywhere. That's why it's called a recession. Let's also disregard the fact that unemployment increased 34 percent for Milwaukee County during Scott Walker's reign.

And, we might as well lose all context and not mention that Milwaukee is also home to the majority of poor and minority citizens in the state. That might have something to do with the unemployment and taxes in Milwaukee, but let's not talk about that.

Let's also not forget Scott Walker took over $60 million dollars (considering the City and MPS) away from Milwaukee in his recent, contentious budget. Should Barrett simply fire teachers, police and firefighters to cover the loss? Or should he end all spending for the poor, the elderly and children? Which services should he stop? Scott Walker refused nearly a billion dollars in aid. How much would that have alleviated unemployment and taxes across the state?

When private companies wreck the economy, why aren't Republicans calling for them to be more efficient and trim more workers? Shouldn't the participants in the sectors responsible for the economic collapse be the ones sacrificing? Conservatives love talking on and on about overpaid public workers and union executives. Where is the outcry regarding CEO compensation? When will Republicans reprimand private executives unsubstantiated and overblown pay? It was alright for the government to step in and fire the General Motor's CEO (in the highly unionized auto industry) but no such actions have taken place on Wall Street, where the majority of criminals responsible for our latest economic debacle still remain.

The public sector not only pays for public services, but we also subsidize and provide tax breaks to the private sector. And, the government is actually supposed to regulate the private sector with regard to the public interest. So where is the demand for sacrifice and accountability from these Robber Barons? We refer to them as "private," but their decisions have public ramifications (and they receive public money), thus, the government needs to regulate their actions...and punish or fine them when necessary. I'd go as far as to say we should just usurp all their ill-gotten gains for the public good. But Republicans prefer firing nurses and teachers.

Republicans are great at making speeches about public workers needing to sacrifice, work for less, pay more for health care, etc., but where are the same calls for responsibility when private sector actors' actions destroy a bank, close a company, or tank an economy?

In a recession, Republicans want to cut public services while giving public dollars to private firms. Yet, they make no qualifications for such largess. Just fork over the money, these private entrepreneurs know what to do with it. Oh, and remember, we're also broke. Austerity only applies to the 99%.

Scott Walker's history has shown that his answer to a tight budget is to have someone else take over a program, to end a program, or to privatize it. As County Executive, his budgets attempted to slash county services, especially for the most vulnerable. The County Board would overrule Walker's Draconian cuts and then Walker would claim leadership, fiscal responsibility and vision. I don't hear Walker touting his record of running up the debt of Milwaukee County. Has he mentioned unemployment went up under his watch at the County? Does he mention the costs of the lawsuits due to his "leadership"?

I'd prefer cities and states stop giving tax cuts, tax breaks and subsidies to the already well-to-do. Sadly, in today's "government is here to serve business" mindset, these types of giveaways (Harley Davidson, Mercury Marine, Miller Park, the Bradley Center, etc.) are increasing. Business is our savior. They've got it all figured out. Strangely, though, they can't seem to get anything done without the government assuming most of the risk and coughing up the initial funding for projects. Sorry, but you're not a great business guru or economic genius because you've bought enough politicians to write legislation to subsidize and insure your private venture's success.

Wisconsin's own Department of Commerce has been transformed, under Walker, into the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. Rather than managing the interests of the state alongside those of business, this entity is now all about promotion, marketing, and funneling money to private business interests. Again, we're supposed to believe business knows how to get things done, thus it is justifiable to use public dollars to help them out. Therefore, we need a public agency performing businesses' PR and fundraising?

The point of all this is to illustrate the bizarro world in which the Republicans operate. In their view, government is inefficient, too big, and burdensome. The "free" market and private enterprise are a well-oiled machine. Government should not pay employees living wages. Government work isn't even real work. Government services are silly and trivial. The sanctity of the "free" market is what makes peoples' lives worth living. Roads, water, clean air, schools, police and fire protection - these are just a few examples of those worthless public works. BUT (and here is where the Republican craziness really gets interesting) we should all be in favor of public dollars funding private speculation...because it might lead to job creation.

Public governance has been transformed from performing services we all enjoy and appreciate into a casino. And, the Republicans own the casino. Now the government exists to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private business escapades. Before our taxes maintained/fixed roads, provided clean parks, and ensured good schools. Tangible things we could all experience and benefit from. Today, those are secondary. Government dollars are now "invested" in the private sector with the hope of job creation.

Regarding Scott Walker's own job creation accomplishments as Wisconsin governor, the record is somewhere between losing roughly 20,000 jobs or gaining 30,000 job. Thus, if we assume the best possible outcome based on this 1-year performance, Walker is on pace to create approximately 120,000 jobs over his first 4-year term. Which will be 130,000 below his campaign promise of creating 250,000 jobs in his first term.

If someone simply promising the sky and then failing miserably is your idea of governance, Scott Walker is your guy. If reasoned, deliberate, methodical decision-making, with everyone's best interests in mind, sounds more like quality governance, Tom Barrett is the only choice.

Vote Tom Barrett, Mahlon Mitchell June 5th!

Where The Real Money Is Made

From the Democratic Party of Wisconsin: "After months spent decrying public school teachers, nurses and snow plow drivers as the 'haves' as justification for his assault on collective bargaining, Scott Walker on Monday night ridiculously suggested that his $144,423 salary isn’t 'real money.' Speaking at a March 12 forum hosted by right-wing radio host Charlie Sykes, Scott Walker stated that he didn’t want to lose the recall, not because he cares about his job as governor, but because his wife would like him to return to the private sector where he could 'make some real money.'"

So, "real" money is made in the private sector. 

But didn't Scott Walker just spend the last year telling all of Wisconsin that the public sector (specifically, unions) was the cause of all our fiscal woes? Didn't he - and the Journal Sentinel, for that matter - harangue the [mythical] lavish benefits, cushy pensions, and excessive hourly pay of public workers? We were told the only way we could balance our budget was to clamp down on the excessive pay of those public sector Rockefellers.

And now Mr. Walker is telling us the "real" money is made in the private sector. 

But seriously, I thought public worker pay needed to be shrunk to "bring it in line with the private sector." Now it sounds, though, that the public sector is, in fact, underpaid in comparison to the private sector. Which, as Scott Walker has explained, is where the "real" money is made.

There is no thought, conviction, nor morality behind anything Mr. Walker and his Republican ilk devise.

The Republican Party, of which Scott Walker has become a poster boy, has truly solidified their position as Mayberry Machiavellis. GOP operatives morph their policy positions to fit whoever is willing to fund their campaigns (textbook crony capitalism), whilst simultaneously accusing their opponents of being for whatever Republicans are against.

Yet another Scott Walker reform where the true conservative scheme position is, finally, revealed...and it is nothing like the original line they were selling. 

Federal Employee Compensation

Unionized workers with only a high school diploma earn, roughly, 20 percent more than their private sector counterparts. When we consider age, education, and experience, public sector workers with at least an Bachelors degree, earn less than their private sector counterparts. These are the conclusions of three recent studies (here, here and here). The Congressional Budget Office's latest research on the topic (looking at Federal employees) has found similar results.

"CBO's study compares federal civilian employees and private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics. This analysis focuses on wages, benefits, and total compensation between 2005 and 2010."

• Federal civilian workers with no more than a high school education earned about 21 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector.
• Workers whose highest level of education was a bachelor's degree earned roughly the same hourly wages, on average, in both the federal government and the private sector.
• Federal workers with a professional degree or doctorate earned about 23 percent less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts.

For Further Reading:

Right-Wing Assault on State Employee Pensions Based on Falsehoods

Journal Sentinel Likes Walker's Package

More astute pronouncements from the Journal Sentinel editorial board, Compensation package works for Wisconsin. They want to assure readers, "The Walker administration's compensation plan takes a reasonable approach to pay and overtime."

"It reduces the chance for overtime abuses, give managers the tools they need to reward the best employees and saves taxpayers money."I'd like to see what percentage of the budget "overtime abuses" actually account for. Overtime pay is part of a contractual negotiation reflecting the total compensation of an employee; if we looked at overtime recipients years of service and hours worked, what do those numbers say? It's easy to throw out a big number and get taxpayers riled. A job of the media is to put things within a larger context and give a true representation. This is merely sensationalism without context...scapegoating.

The editorial conveniently glosses over the pay for political appointees issue. That can be handled at a later date; it's not a big deal. Nothing to see (or talk about) here, move along. Even though they then, later in the article, while discussing merit pay, note that, "There is legitimate concern that merit pay could turn into rewards for political or personal favorites, but thats seems unlikely." Yes, Scott Walker has only tried to reward every crony he knows in his first few months in office. But such favoritism seems unlikely? The articles says, "As the plan is explained on the state's website, the work of an employee would need to meet certain standards." Oh, "certain standards." That clears things up. Now I feel better.

They then repeat well-worn woe for the long-suffering private sector, "Such increased costs for benefits and cuts in pay have been routine in the private industry for several years." Um, where the hell has this editorial board been? Public workers in Wisconsin have seen increased health care costs over the past few years, they've also been furloughed and laid off. This is on top the recent wage freezes, lay offs, and increased pension and health care cost mandates. And, this punish-the-public-workers sentiment completely ignores recent studies showing that a public sector worker's total compensation is LESS that similarly educated and experienced private sector worker. The Journal wants public sector workers, whom already earn less, to be the ones to sacrifice more, while also pumping more lies into the debate - that public workers haven't yet sacrificed and that they earn more.

And, since it's an editorial board standard, they commend the private sector, yet again, "As many in the private sector understand, merit pay hikes can be useful tool for increasing efficiency and productivity, and the overtime changes are especially warranted." Geez, one would think with this omnipotent and sensible private sector we would have eradicated poverty and unemployment by now.

Making sure no public worker is paid at a higher rate for overtime work is very important to the editorial board. This abuse must be stopped. Again, no numbers are given to support such apoplexy. And, even more perplexing, I never see the board pontificating about excessive executive pay, the millions made by CEOs whom have lost their company money or presided over a decline in their stock's price, the tax avoidance schemes of the well-to-do, or any of these abuses of the system. Always punishing the peasants, but never questioning the kings.

Cut Out The (Private Sector) Middleman

State Senators Tim Cullen and Dale Schultz have jumped on the venture capital bandwagon. Their recent Journal Sentinel opinion piece touted a venture capital bill for Wisconsin. Venture capital is described by Investopedia as, "Most venture capital comes from a group of wealthy investors, investment banks and other financial institutions that pool such investments or partnerships. This form of raising capital is popular among new companies or ventures with limited operating history, which cannot raise funds by issuing debt. The downside for entrepreneurs is that venture capitalists usually get a say in company decisions, in addition to a portion of the equity."

The jobs are right around the corner.

"We believe that properly structured and administered by non-politicians, the venture capital bill will be our most important long-term jobs legislation of the year," state Cullen and Schultz.

Huh? The most important jobs legislation? If that's the case, we're in real trouble. Venture capital is a small part of capital markets and much less efficient than the glowing mythology created by venture capital firms and the media.

Now, some of the caveats of the bill are laudable: making sure private money is invested before public dollars are committed and rejecting proposals that use a CAPCO investment structure.

But even those caveats don't mean venture capital is a panacea for job creation.

The authors also state, perplexingly, "We should not put public dollars where private dollars don't want to go." WTF?! Um, public goods and public investment are exactly that - the stuff businesses won't do because they generally can't see a clear and immediate profit from such (but nonetheless are still integral to our daily lives and counted on by all citizens). Business isn't going to build the Hoan Bridge or the Marquette Interchange, repair and plow the roads, nor ensure clear air and water. These types of costs are externalized onto the general public by businesses. They benefit disproportionately from such infrastructure, but aren't willing to decrease their bottom line for it. So, yeah, we do want public dollars to go where private dollars won't go. And it would also be nice of those parasites would pay their fair share.

For some reason, in the article, the state senators parrot the oft-repeated right-wing theme of bashing government, "The Legislature should reject any plan that presumes government can make better decisions with your money than investors can with their own money." Based on the fact that the majority of American citizens are ill-prepared for retirement (have been unsuccessful in investing for their golden years), this mantra falls flat in the face of the evidence. Ask Social Security recipients if they are happy with that investment program which allows them to invest during their working years (over such time their investment appreciates at a steady, reliable rate) and then receive a defined benefit when they retire.

How about a good old fashioned investment in a nationwide public works program? Post WWII, it created the middle-class and erected the infrastructure that made us the greatest nation and the envy of the world. Now other countries have passed us by, or at least have a plan for public investment and realize it's importance. Instead of directly investing through our government, to put our fellow Americans back to work, our legislators are selling the debunked idea of channelling such investment through private sector machinations. Venture capital funds (which may be a viable, small portion of government-initiated job creation) are, generally, a circuitous and inefficient route to job creation.

Privatization Loses Money

Great new study by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). More real-world, empirical evidence that privatization does not save money. We're simply shifting money from good-paying jobs (public sector) for services we need, to low-paying private sector companies that charge more, yet only a select few at the top of the organization share in the majority of the bounty. We're paying more to privatize public sector work based on the MYTH that it's costing us less to have it done by a private organization.

"This report proves otherwise: in fact, it shows that the government actually pays service contractors at rates far exceeding the cost of employing federal employees to perform comparable functions."

"POGO estimates the government pays billions more annually in taxpayer dollars to hire contractors than it would to hire federal employees to perform comparable services. Specifically, POGO’s study shows that the federal government approves service contract billing rates—deemed fair and reasonable—that pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation, and more than 2 times the total compensation paid in the private sector for comparable services."