| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 51° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
March 2, 2005
Now's the time to close the public, private wage gap
When they first convened, many issues were to be addressed quickly and seriously: Property tax relief (to prevent a taxpayer revolt), education accountability and funding (forget accountability), and the issue of a refund of a portion of the surplus. What they have actually done so far is play partisan politics with national representatives on recess (nice work if you can get it, huh?), introduced a bill to close some officials' public records, sponsored a bill to raise the minimum wage and another requiring this new wage be paid to many independent contactors under certain circumstances (?), and of course the most important issue of the day, doubling their own pay and perks. They were able to get in a vote calling on Congress to reject any changes to the Social Security system. Never mind this vote was a meaningless waste of time. What is especially galling is the fact no public employees even contribute to the system. Thank God we only allow them to meet once every two years for a total of 120 days. As for the issues, anyone who thinks the Legislature is going to provide long-term property tax relief is kidding themselves. Local governments and their union leaders are already crying about the devastation any cuts to their excessive funding will cause. After all, they were never trained to deal with real life scenarios such as making a value decision between programs or raises, between entitlements and benefits, or between adjusting spiraling salaries downward or having to reduce staffs. They're the government. Their job is merely to offer someone else's money to solve a problem that will probably only get worse if they try to fix it. The current call to raise the minimum wage is a perfect example of not looking at the consequences of an action already tried elsewhere. California raised their minimum wage to be permanently above the federal level some time ago. Liberals will, of course, disagree, but I believe that states' unemployment level being consistently two percent higher than ours is related to the difference. Perhaps that is why San Francisco has an even higher unemployment rate than the state. Their minimum wage is even higher than the state's. But don't just look at California, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin or Connecticut, for evidence, you should look to the bastions of liberalism in Europe for proof. France and Germany have minimum wages much higher than ours, and even guarantee citizens a "meaningful" wage. Of course they also have unemployment rates of 10 and 12.5 percent. The only time our rate reached that level was during the Great Depression from 1930-1942. It should also be noted their economies have not grown in the last three years as much as ours grew in the last quarter of 2004. It's no wonder their standard of living is less than ours and they can't protect themselves. Liberalism has run rampant over the liberties enjoyed by our people for nearly 70 years now. Is that a way of living we really want to emulate? I for one would like to see our representatives work harder to bridge the growing gap between the public and private sectors in all areas. When Sen. John Edwards spoke of two Americas, I don't think he was referring to the one represented by government employees at all levels with the other being private citizens. But that is the real story of the two Americas. Assembly Bill 142 was introduced with the expressed intent of making confidential the assessor records of police, legislators, and 20 other official capacities. It would also hide from scrutiny voter registration records. Talk about two Americas; so much for a free and open government. With the current maelstrom regarding the financial dealings of Scott Gragson and the Clark County government, I wonder if anyone would ever have been the wiser if all such records regarding state investors were hidden. It is a very dangerous course we would set when those charged with our security and well being are allowed to become more concerned with their own future than with ours. Who will then protect us from them? And finally, I come to the latest and greatest attempt to assure we are provided with the best government money can buy. Lawmakers want voters to approve doubling their current $7,800 regular legislative session salary to $15,600, plus expense allowances. When you look at this figure, it certainly doesn't seem like much, and perhaps a raise of sorts might be in order. Based upon a 120-day session, the salary for lawmakers would now equal an annual income of approximately $44,000. Their travel, lodging, mail and meals are separate. They are provided laptop computers with Internet and e-mail access, a support staff, and retirement benefits. Guess all we need now is some sort of built-in guarantee that if we give them their raise they will perform their duties on time, and on budget. Or, this could be only the beginning of something else. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
