Obama Turns On The Base — Freezes Federal Pay

The GOP will say “thanks for doing what we’ve been proposing” and then promptly will tell Obama “we’re not giving you an inch.” If Obama caves on the issue of extending the income tax cut (not corporate tax, for those who get easily confused) for the top 2% then he will have lost my vote, and, my guess, is millions of others in 2012. Where he ends up on this issue in the next 30 days will define his presidency. If he can’t figure this out, then I voted for the wrong guy.

It is also a challenge to Republicans: Are they willing to take anything away from their bases? Or, when it comes to addressing the federal deficit, will they continue to dance with the ones that brung them?

That’s pretty idiotic. Republicans to have to pretend to be helping their base to get their vote. They throw empty promises all the time, hate speech, and unworkable solutions. Through it all they get support. Obama “throwing down the gauntlet” by hurting the economy further does nothing to help his position and it never will.
·
This is the worst decision he has made so far, and it signals he will be making more bad decisions.

I’m a federal employee and the pay freeze will mean no raise for me for the next two years. My health care premiums will continue to go up so I’m looking at a net loss of pay. I’m just happier than hell that I’m working. I can live without a pay raise. If I need to cut back, I’ll cut back. It makes me sick that so many people whine about others needing to make sacrifices but don’t want to make any of their own. When a sacrifice is needed, you sacrifice. Everybody. Not just the other guy. Does this mean I’m going to vote for a republican in 2012 because the Muslim socialist froze my pay? Of course not. I’ll vote for Obama again. I’ll do it gladly. Not even taking into account that the last thing I want is for some Tea Bagger to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court, I still feel very comfortable with Barack in office.

Or, when it comes to addressing the federal deficit, will they continue to dance with the ones that brung them?
.
What does this mean? The republicans should raise taxes? Cut Social Security? Medicare? Ban the scooters from Medicare coverage? Cut the defense budget?
.
What do the ones who brung them propose they do?
.
Oh, right. Say they are against earmarks and waste.

Not voting for Obama does not mean voting for a Republican. I will look for other democrat alternatives and if those don’t exist, I will look to a 3rd party.
·
I have a feeling you’re not at the lower end of government pay. I’m sure some of those down closer to the bottom won’t be as happy.
·
If he had set a line where people above a certain point didn’t get to make more, then that’d make sense. But this across the board freeze looks as if it wasn’t thought out well. Its a statement, not a solution, and it is a statement made with other people’s livelihoods.

You wrote:

It is also a challenge to Republicans: Are they willing to take anything away from their bases? Or, when it comes to addressing the federal deficit, will they continue to dance with the ones that brung them?

That is certainly a rhetorical question. Of course, the Republicans will dance with who brung ‘em. It is what they do. The GOP is unfailingly soliticitous of its base, standing in stark contrast to the Democrats who are unfailingly contemptuous of theirs. For some reason, Democrats seem to believe the only way they can be taken seriously is by adopting Republican political memes and by betraying their base at every opportunity. Here we go again.

Not only is this federal pay freeze bad politics, it is bad policy. The economy is suffering from a reduction in aggregate demand. There is not enough demand for products and services, therefore there is no incentive for businesses to hire more people to produce and provide those products and services. Restore demand, you restore jobs. Take away demand, you eliminate more jobs.

Taking real wages away from millions of workers will eliminate more jobs. How is that supposed to help Obama get re-elected in 2012? What will be his argument? “Vote for me because I shaved $5 billion dollars off of $1.3 trillion deficit over two years”? Yeah, that’ll work.

Stupid. Weak and stupid.

Glad to do my part, but saving $28 billion by freezing fed wages while spending $3 billion weekly on Iraq + Afgan wars – what’s the point? 9 free weeks of pointless spending? And why not Congress? Are you kidding me? They get paid to overspend as it is.

Sacredh,

I’m a federal employee as well, and I agree. We’ve been substantially untouched by the economic upheavals, so I’m not going to b!tch about a wage freeze. Provided it gets paired eventually with some meaningful deficit reduction that I might actually approve of.
.
But, also agree with gumOnShoe, in that folks at lower pay grades are more effected, and I’m also concerned that this is some gratuitous a$$ kissing on the part of Obama to get the Repubs to “compromise” on things that would be “uncomfortable” for them, like decreasing defense spending, or more taxes on the wealthy. Kicking the Federal Employee first is a time honored tradition for both parites.
.
From the AFGE (the Fed employee union) website:
.
“WASHINGTON – The American Federation of Government Employees today decried President Obama’s proposal to freeze pay for federal civilian employees in 2011 and 2012.
.
“This proposal is a superficial panic reaction to the draconian cuts his deficit commission will recommend,” stated AFGE National President John Gage. “A federal pay freeze saves peanuts at best and, while he may mean it as just a public relations gesture, this is no time for political scapegoating. The American people didn’t vote to stick it to a VA nursing assistant making $28,000 a year or a border patrol agent earning $34,000 per year.
.
“President Obama asks federal workers to share the sacrifice, but it’s unconscionable for him to attack the wages of federal working people while the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street not only get their bailouts and astronomical bonuses; they also get their tax cuts,” concluded Gage.”

I make in the 60′s. That’s not anywhere near the top and I feel fortunate to make as much as I do. I do support there being a cut-off point for a pay freeze. It wouldn’t bother me if it was below my pay grade. I suspect that Obama may have made the proposal for a federal pay freeze to head off actual cuts in pay that the republicans might propose. I also suspect that Obama may have tried to set the tone for cuts by starting with a sector that has already recieved alot of criticism. We’re not exactly famous for supporting republican candidates to begin with so it’s not as if the republicans would think that actually cutting our pay as opposed to freezing it would cost them any votes.

I was a federal employee when George H W Bush did the same thing. He lost my vote. He took a pay cut too – big deal. He didn’t need the money; I needed the money. I had been underpaid throughout my 30 year career, but I had taken satisfaction that I was providing a genuine service to my country. That satisfaction was not enough to offset the final insult, a pay freeze.

gumOnShoe, I’d also take a hard look at another democratic candidate that might choose to primary Obama. Before I would even consider voting for them, I would have to be convinced that they had a good chance of winning the general election. I’m a liberal but I would not support a liberal candidate because I don’t believe a liberal could win in this political environment. If Hillary changes her mind and decides to run, I’d vote for her because I believe she could win. A Howard Dean presidency would make me happy but I don’t think he’d stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected.

Obama is looking increasingly unelectable. The elderly still aren’t going to vote for him. The closet racists still aren’t going to vote for him. A lot of the moderates have been disenfranchised, even if they never really understood why they were voting aside for the word “change”. You’ll still have students, but you won’t have as many because it won’t be about turning the country in the right direction. Latinos may actually swing heavier for the president, but I don’t know by how much. He probably still has the black vote.
·
My worry is young moderate or liberal folks like myself who have been dumped out into one of the worst economies, ignored, and made to suffer the worst of it all. Low entry level salaries, if there were any jobs to begin with. No raises. Virtually no path to move upward or chance to switch to another job. Savings near nothing. Don’t forget we were the people that came out strong for him. And a lot of us feel ignored. We believed in a lot of what he campaigned for and did, but ultimately it hasn’t helped us.
·
If the next 2 years are going to be austerity and debt reduction, then he isn’t going to have our votes. Those things don’t fix the economy, they slow it down, they hurt us. A portion of us will bite the bullet and vote against republicans, but I’d like to have something to vote for. Currently, Obama isn’t being that person.

Hey, gumOnshoe, sacredh may not be at the bottom of the pay scale, but how much one makes shouldn’t be a determining factor in deciding if you are willing to sacriface–so long as everybody is asked to make similar sacrifaces.
.
I don’t work a government job, I work non-profit, for a government supported (read tax payer) public health service provider. My position does happen to be one of the lowest paid in the agency, at just over 20,000. And guess what. I’d rather see the Bush tax cuts expire on myself and everybody else than see the top 2% earners get continue to get tax breaks of nearly as mush as I have to live.
.
Pay freezes are not fun. Just ask every social security recipient who has not seen a COLA in 3 straight year as of Jan. 1, 2011.

gumOnShoe. I can understand your anger and disillusionment. I’ve had this job for over 35 years and don’t know it’s like to be unemployed. I hit retirement age this past summer but I work because I enjoy my job and the people I work with. Before you might sit out the next election or vote for a candidate that has little to no chance of being elected, consider the very real possibility that a republican president would be all tax cuts for the wealthy and f**k everybody else. While you may not be happy with Obama, you could very well be furious and screwed with the alternative.

The point is not that these people should not be willing to sacrifice. The point is that they shouldn’t sacrifice needlessly, for no cause, and at a time where their sacrifice is more likely to hurt the American economy than help it.
·
The bush tax cuts are a different ball game all together.
·
Freezing pay basically tells our federal employees that no matter how hard they work, we won’t be helping them any further, that they shouldn’t put in any extra effort for the next 2 years unless out of the goodness of their hearts they feel they should. And, you know, maybe there are some like you who would do that. I don’t think it should be asked for a vain political purpose.

Why would Republicans compromise with Obama when he does their bidding for nothing?

Unions ought to announce an immediate freeze on any more contributions to the Democratic party and begin work on establishing a new party that represents the interests of labor, rather than simply paying them lip service.

“Race-to-the-bottom” wages? What is that guy smoking? I wish I were as well paid as the people whose wages are being frozen, but I’m just a lowly private-sector entrepreneur who can only dream of those earnings.

Alas, gum, 2012 may not have a realistic third choice and we’ll have to choose between President Obama and President Palin. And staying home only increases the chance of getting the latter since thanks to the TP the R base will turn out yet on paper there are supposed to be more registered D’s than R’s. Okay, sacred said the same thing but it’s still a tough choice.

sacredh, at the point in time where it comes down to a vote, I will make a responsible decision. I will not be supporting Obama’s reelection campaign and if there are other viable primary candidates they have my ears.
·
He said when he started out he’d be happy being a 1 term president. I hope he still feels that way. The best thing he could do for this country is announce when the next batch is sworn in that he will not be running again. And then he could actually go to bat for the us. For 2 years he could act like the kind of person he needs to be acting like. One who isn’t worried about polls, but instead results.

gumOnShoe, a pay freeze wouldn’t make any difference in my work output. I can’t even remember the last time I had anything less than exceptional ratings across the board. I get a nice bonus ever year for getting that rating but it wouldn’t make any difference if I didn’t get any bonus. I work out of personal pride and wanting to earn my pay. I could do half of the work I do and still make my boss happy. I do agree that federal employess at the lower end should get raises and I hope that they do. If this move by Obama doesn’t result in cuts elsewhere, I will be upset, just not upset enough to not vote for him again if it comes down to that.

“The best thing he could do for this country is announce when the next batch is sworn in that he will not be running again”
.
I have been giving some thought to that as well. If Hillary would agree to run, I’d wholeheartedly go for that scenario.

“I’m a federal employee and the pay freeze will mean no raise for me for the next two years. My health care premiums will continue to go up so I’m looking at a net loss of pay. I’m just happier than hell that I’m working”
.
You have written the only rational thought from the left on this subject. No one likes to see their pay shrink, but as you have stated — you are still working.

sacredh

“I work out of personal pride and wanting to earn my pay.”

.
I stand corrected. There were two rational thoughts and you display an attitude that is unfortunately absent in our entitlement world of today.

I work as a federal civilian employee too. As far as the pay freeze, the little cost of living raises were doing just fine for me. I got two incentive awards the last two years and a promotion and they were triple my pay raise (cost of living) by like the blowout the Chargers put on Indy last night. Here is the thing alot of Federal Employees need to first look at what is being taken out like stuff that we could do without (purchasing power buys and the like). If you can avoid using your TSP to borrow money thats even better. I know because i have nearly 200 dollars a pay period coming out from both. I know alot of us in the union are upset at this but hey if you dont trust whose running your country vote ‘em out. I look forward to January when I get my pay raise (when my purchasing power account is paid off). Another thing is get rid of blue cross and go with GEHA and you will see what a pay raise looks like…If you work for the federal govenrment, esp. law enforcement, dont cry about the govenrment’s inability to do things right, look at what’s being taken out your check and if its about to be paid off then look at that as a raise. I just hope things dont get any worse than they are now….

Here’s something rational. How about the super rich voluntarily forgo earnings as well? How about, they put them into fixing the debt, hiring others, or giving poorer people raises?
·
Oh wait, that’s right. That isn’t being rational. That’s communism. -_-

Hmm. Let’s see how this plays out. I predict one of two possible scenarios:

A. The GOP nominates Palin, O’Donnell, or Angle for President.

B. Obama loses re-election.

To paraphrase Sean Connery from The Hunt For Red October (and said with a Scotch-Russian accent), “personally, I give the President one chance in three.”

Why do you have this absolute sense of entitlement that regardless of the financial situation you should be paid more money?
.
Employees in private businesses take not just salary freezes but pay cuts routinely, that is if they are fortunate enough not to be laid off.
.
Your solution is for somebody to be conscripted to pay more money to the federal government just for you to receive more money. It seems greed isn’ t only found on Wall St and in corporations.

“Unions ought to announce an immediate freeze on any more contributions to the Democratic party and begin work on establishing a new party that represents the interests of labor, rather than simply paying them lip service.”
.
Yes, and we know how this ends—bankruptcy just as it happened in steel, airline and auto industries.

I think you’ve glossed over, freep, the assertion that private employees should not be taking pay cuts or freezes any longer, unless their companies are in peril, which is not the case across the board or in most circumstances right now.

The best thing he could do for this country is announce when the next batch is sworn in that he will not be running again. And then he could actually go to bat for the us. For 2 years he could act like the kind of person he needs to be acting like. One who isn’t worried about polls, but instead results.

Ridiculous. Were Obama to make such a pronouncement, he would effectively become a lame duck immediately and would have absolutely zero influence with the public or Democrats. How much would he get done then?
..
It sounds to be like you’ve been reading the drivel in the WPost. BTW, the authors of the article in question are absolute morons. I’ve read your posts Gum and I give you more credit than that.

“I think you’ve glossed over, freep, the assertion that private employees should not be taking pay cuts or freezes any longer, unless their companies are in peril”
.
Where do liberals get this crap! The fiduciary duty of companies executives is to shareholders and owners and not to pay out some set price in wages to employees. Liberals think if the company is not filing bankruptcy they should be hiking wages and benefits to employees. That brilliance is what killed the manufacturing sector in this country
.
Peril? The peril still exists in unknown tax structures, costly new regulations and the nightmare of the HC reform.

“Oh wait, that’s right. That isn’t being rational. That’s communism. -_-”
.
I can provide a list of countries where that would be possible for you. Funny how liberals love that thought but never the regimes where you live under that fantasy.

I don’t read the Washington (<-w?) Post, but my arguments are such:
·
• 2 years would give democrats enough time to launch a viable candidate
• Republicans still don't have viable candidates. They have no effective leader. Most of their leaders are either social conservatives that won't stand up well, nuts, or moderates who their base will likely purge in primary.
• A solid democratic candidate would have a good shot at winning. Perhaps a former governor. Someone who can't be tied to Health Care reform.
• If Obama doesn't have to worry about reelection he may not be able to curry favors, but he's pretty much exhausted that anyways, especially since democrats don't control the house and he's caving to austerity. His policy would likely be more honest & he'd be more capable of saying yes and no if his hands aren't tied.
• As I've said, while I believe he's trying to meet his austerity promises from when he ran, I don't believe this is a good time to do it.
• Most of the decisions he has had to make to achieve policy have cost him votes. He may be unelectable in 2 years, especially if he gives Republicans more power as this move signals he is going to do.
• Frankly, a new President with less skeletons would be better for everyone. And no, I don't think Palin is a valid reason for not running someone else. If anything, its an invitation.

If you’d made virtually any other argument I’d have tried to refute it, but what you are arguing for is at minimal an oligarchy and at best an aristocracy. I personally don’t want to live in either and your irrational fears I’ve addressed previously.
·
So essentially, your vision for America blows.

Why do the Wall Street banksters/AIG hustlers all have such a sense of entitlement that they should be paid even after they blew up the economy? Believe me, there is still plenty of money, the only ones who have paid (and continue to pay) for their criminal fraud and negligance is US – the people. Talk about a sense of entitlement!

“but what you are arguing for is at minimal an oligarchy and at best an aristocracy. I personally don’t want to live in either and your irrational fears I’ve addressed previously.”
.
No what I am arguing fo ris capitalism which has served this country well. What you wish for is socialism. And if you truly feel that this country “blows”, then please avail yourself to any of the socialist regimes around the world. BTW, they are discovering that socialism is better as a dream tan a reality and are shifting to –wait for it–capitalism. Seems more of the world “blows” for you.
.
“the only ones who have paid (and continue to pay) for their criminal fraud and negligance is US – the people. Talk about a sense of entitlement!”
.
Really and the evidence of criminal fraud is what exactly? Negligence? . The bailouts were misguided and now we have a government regulating a problem that doesn’t exist as they all sat idly by or encouraged the activity. Hence the argument for a smaller government not a larger more oppressive one.

Well Gum, it looks like we won’t agree on this one. Though I don’t agree with a number of things Obama has proposed or done, I’ll continue to support him until there is a viable alternative. Besides that, it’s nearly impossible to predict whether any politician is electable or unelectable in 2012 at this point.
..
Secondly, why would Obama have to make such a decision for Democrats to come up with a primary challenger? One has nothing to do with the other.
..
Third, it has nothing to do with “currying favor” with anyone. The Repubs have absolutely turned a deaf ear to Obama since 1/20/09 and if he announced that he would not seek re-election, the Democrats and the public would do the same. Please explain how it is that you think he could accomplish anything in this scenario?
..
Lastly, I have long advocated for a constitutional change in the length of the Presidential term. I favor a single six-year term for the President; no re-election campaigns, no distractions. I’m curious, would you or anyone else would favor such a proposal?

Well Gum, it looks like we won’t agree on this one.

It happens.
·
Would it be better to wait for a viable alternative, or to find one. Often times, those who want to be viable alternatives are the worst options. It’d be better to find one, I’d think.
·
As far as electability, if the economy continues to stay flat its actually pretty easy.
·
Obama making the decision would make it less painful, and might earn the Dems some points, especially if he can cast it as “I’m forgoing an election to work for you at a time when you need my concentration most. The decisions I’ve made have been hard ones, and I understand that its time for someone else to pick up from where I left off for the countries benefit.”
·
He’s still the president, and as you’ve said the Republicans haven’t been listening, and they aren’t likely to start now. They control the house. He doesn’t control the senate. He isn’t going to accomplish anything as a potential 2 termer that he can’t accomplish now as a 1 termer. I don’t see how him running again benefits us, especially now that the entire platform he ran on is relatively meaningless. He doesn’t have a narrative anymore.
·
As far as 6 year terms. I’d be fine with it. I’m not particularly in favor of it or opposed. I think it might make our government a little less flexible in dire situations, but that could be simultaneously good and bad.

Obviously management, and all the decision makers, had nothing to do with it.

Wow! Bad policy AND bad politics?
.
Same as health care reform, same as off shore drilling, same as….

A “challenge” to the Republicans?

If a mugger pulls a gun on me in an alley, and I throw my wallet at him and run away screaming, am I “challenging” the mugger?

Why on earth should the Republicans feel compelled to take anything away from their base in response to this? The Republicans will just turn to their base, say “See, even Obama agrees with us! Let’s demand even more from him!”, and laugh all the way to the bank. Why can’t the self-appointed “sensible” moderates of the press see this?

I’m a federal worker, and I’ve got to say, this is a sad state of affairs. No, not the President’s proposal regarding the pay freeze, but the typical reactions from union leaders — it’s almost as if they had a “this is outrageous” script cued up for the President’s announcement. Is it really so outrageous that public servants be asked to sacrifice when we are receiving our salary from taxpayer money? I’m sure that for some people, adjustments, maybe even significant adjustments will have to be made, but how is this move in any way surprising? The country is going through a difficult economic period right now, and some people seem to believe that federal workers should somehow be immune from this reality.

I feel incredibly fortunate to have a steady job and a roof over my head, while others in this country have not been so lucky. And some people in the private sector, like my Mom for example, have had to deal with furloughs and other cost saving measures so that their companies can stay afloat during the recession. And what are we dealing with, a two-year pay freeze…and people are outraged? Maybe we have lost our perspective as a country, maybe we needed a depression to shake us out of our entitlement stupor, because this type of reaction is silly.

If people are really that up in arms about a freeze on their salary over the next two years, then I would suggest they start dusting off their resumes to apply for jobs with higher salaries in the private sector. Good luck with that. There are a lot of highly qualified unemployed people out there who are chomping at the bit to work for the federal government and I am quite sure they have a much better perspective and appreciation for having a job at all in this climate. I remind myself of this fact whenever I grumble about typical work frustrations.

Sheesh. Nation of whiners indeed.

free,
He said,
“So essentially, your vision for America blows.”
.
You said,
“Seems more of the world “blows” for you.”
.
As usual, you twisted it. He was talking to you about your twisted vision. I agree. It blows.

The Teapubs in Congress will gladly applaud the president’s pay freeze for federal employees as a sign that he finally recognizes “the people’s will”. Then:
- They’ll say it’s too little, too late to make a dent in the bloated federal deficit.
- They’ll announce plans to cut all federal workers’ pay by 10% across the board – permanently.
- They’ll announce plans to cut all “unnecessary” federal positions, and lay off the workers immediately – except for the military, and congressional staff positions.
- They’ll fund (another) “efficiency review” of all federal cabinet departments and sub-departments with the announced aim of devolving as many as possible tasks to the states and/or eliminating “unnecessary” departments like: Education; Labor; Postal Service; Environment; Health & Human Services; Housing & Urban Development; Transportation; Energy; Fannie Mae + Freddie Mac; US Geological Survey; and whatever else bugs a particular Repub Senator – except Defence/Homeland Security.
- Then they’ll write into each appropriations bill, for the remaining shriveled arms of the government, directives
that a minimum of ___ % of the work be outsourced to private contractors as an incentive for “the implementation of free market solutions to hitherto insoluble problems”; the cost of the resulting “cost-plus” contracts will be paid out of the departments’ budget, whether the contracted work is adequate, cost-effective, or not even completed.
- Sometime during this implementation of the people’s will, they’ll move to destroy all “civil service” protections for all remaining federal empoyees, and replace it with a spoils system such as that great (Democratic) President Jackson did – and hail it as inter-party cooperation.
- They’ll attempt to kill all of the “Obamacare” law; failing that, they will defund it, with the promise to appropriate enough money to pay for “the good parts” – and forget to do so; medicaid aid to the states will wither to nothing.
- After declaring the “2nd Republican Revolution” a success, they will vote, yet again, for a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, and blame the traitorous Democrats for its not passing.
.
Did I miss anything?
.
Dammit, I almost forgot:
- They’ll permanently bar any federal aid to states for unemployment insurance as “welfare for the lazy”.
-Then they’ll eliminate all capital gains taxes; lower the income tax to 15% for everybody to incentize Wall Street bankers to give $2 tips to shoe shine boys; and extend the “inheritance tax holiday” to infinity, retroactive to AD 1620.
.
What did I miss?

Oh BS wait untill you see what he wants done about SS. It doesn’t look promising. He is not I repeat not a Democrat

You left out the part where the GOP leadership classifies any federal money going to red states and districts as being “essential”, while anything going to blue states and districts is “wasteful earmarks and pork barrel”.

kb,
You’re not complaining that other people are getting more than you, are you? Don’t you know that that’s “free market heresy” Republicans and their fellow travelers like 2thirds, free, etc. continually charge that anybody who points out that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer is guilty of “class warfare”. According to them, whoever makes more than you is a “producer”; if you don’t, you aren’t, so you deserve what your lame self gets…
Except for union members and government workers (whether unionized or not) – they’re commie socialist nazi thugs who don’t deserve the so-called livable wage they get because they’re incompetent slugs.
You should be glad that you are poor. That gives you incentive to work hard, and someday you, too, will inherit a billion dollars worth of stock in a corporation which (correction: WHO, according to the Supremes) pays its top executives millions of dollars per year to drive it into the ground – but spends lots of $$ to bribe politicians to safeguard your wealth.
.
This should goad you to become a “producer”:
“The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).”
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
.
So get crackin’!
By the way – don’t get sick until the Repubs finish killing the new health care reforms. You wouldn’t want to have to take advantage of its better treatments at lower cost, would you?
Of course not.

11charlie,
I didn’t think of that. But… they wouldn’t do that, would they?
I mean that’s crass, right? Surely the few, few greedy Repubs would be wrangled back into the corral of conservative rectitude by their virtuous fellows, and renounce, denounce, and vote against any form of “special appropriations” for their districts and/or states for the budgetary good of the nation as a whole.
…
On second thought… Never mind.

Equally culpable but they are now gone while the UAW lingers (festers) and profiting at the expense of the taxpayer

The “twisted” vision as you both assert it is cutting taxes and cuttign entitlements is a vision that blows. Yes that is what I believe we need as do many of the countries who have practiced European socialism for decades. The whiny left in those countries think it “blows” too but it is what will save them. I know accepting that your life philosophy is useless is difficult to take but then that’s why capitalist fund R&D for drug companies to help you through the reality

Tell me where I can send a box of tissue and a bottle of prozac for the liberals. The left mistakenly believed that the election of Obama who went through the campaign with the press cheering not questioning, was a vote for linberal extremism. Wrong!

Equally culpable

I see that there’s a special on false equivalence today. In no way can the two be construed to be “equally culpable.” The UAW and it’s members neither decide how the business is run nor what products will be built. They are also not part of the strategic planning process. Only an avowed hater of unions such as yourself could possibly conclude that the UAW is equally culpable in the poor decisions of the management team.

So you cut taxes and cut entitlements, what does that get you? How does that reduce anything, when its essentially a net zero result? Or are you just parroting the same talking points and insults over and over?