Screw Them Back

Another one of those stories that isn't really news, but comes across as jaw-dropping in its sheer visceral loathsomeness:

Among the fifty-two MSAs with a population of one million or more, only three had an increase in both net earnings and personal income in 2009 (Washington, D.C.; San Antonio, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Virginia). The biggest gains in compensation in these three MSAs were in the federal government (civilian and military combined). Private sector compensation declined in these three MSAs

And in the rest of the country, too - and those that did post income gains didn't much do so from REAL economic activity:

Personal income declined in 2009 in most of the nation’s metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), according to estimates released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal income declined in 223 MSAs, increased in 134, and remained unchanged in nine MSAs. On average, MSA personal income fell 1.8% in 2009, after rising 2.7% in 2008. …

Although personal income grew in 134 MSAs, in most cases this growth represented an increase in transfer receipts (unemployment insurance benefits, for example). Only in fifty-seven MSAs did the net earnings of workers increase in 2009. In most of the fifty-seven MSAs where net earnings increased, the gains were concentrated in the government sector. Military earnings growth was particularly strong in seven of the ten MSAs with the fastest personal income growth in 2009: Jacksonville and Fayetteville, North Carolina; Manhattan, Kansas; Elizabethtown, Kentucky; Lawton, Oklahoma; Clarksville, Tennessee; and Killeen, Texas.

As Ace cracked, "Washington DC's in the business of government, and business is good, baby."  And guess what, says JackM: it's about to get even better:

You are a little bit wrong about the $26 billion [state government] bailout fund... in that you don't articulate just how insidious this is. It's basically a ploy to have the American taxpayers fill up campaign coffers for Dems.

$10 billion of this money goes to the unions. Before the money gets to the "teachers" the unions skim off their share of mandatory "contributions".

The money skimmed by the unions goes directly into the union political advocacy/footsoldier network to get out votes for Dems.

Morale and contributions for Dems are down this cycle, and Pelosi is throwing a hail mary pass here. She has to close the enthusiasm gap by coercing the American taxpayer into footing the bill for Dem campaigns. It's a money laundering scam.

Money stolen from yours and my declining personal incomes to try and keep the thieves in power so they can keep on stealing.  A thoroughly obnoxious sibling to the Royal Family's conspicuous Antoinetteism.  How's that make y'all feel?

Yeah, me too.  So wouldn't this make you feel so good it'd be X-rated?:

Whenever a conservative suggests reducing the federal deficit by cutting spending rather than raising taxes, there's always someone to ask: Well, what would you cut? Americans may say they want less government spending, the argument goes, but they don't want anyone to touch their services and subsidies and monthly checks.

Fair enough. But there's a persuasive counter-argument going around in conservative circles these days: You can start cutting government spending without cutting anyone's services or subsidies or monthly checks. Just bring the pay of federal workers into line with pay in the private sector.

A recent Heritage Foundation study found the average federal worker (excluding the uniformed military) makes $78,901 a year in wages and salary versus $50,111 for the average private sector worker. When you count generous health and pension benefits, the average total compensation of federal workers comes to $111,015 a year versus $60,078 in the private sector.

In recent years, that disparity has been fueled by an explosion of federal generosity on the high end of the pay scale....

If Congress were to freeze federal pay raises until the private sector begins to catch up, the savings to taxpayers would be considerable. Heritage scholar James Sherk estimates that ending the disparity could save the taxpayers $47 billion a year. (A study by the American Enterprise Institute put the figure at $40 billion.) That won't get close to balancing the budget, but add up ten years of that and the government will save significant money.

I'd take it further by immediately slashing federal drones' pay and benies to current private sector levels AND indexing both to their private sector counterparts.  Ditto Congress.  Give 'em all a personal stake in promulgating growth-friendly economic policies instead of the hard-left insanity of the past eighteen months.

Nobody's saying this is anything but an orgasmic, yes, vengeful first step in cleaning up the debt mess by taking a meat cleaver to the filthbags who made it.  And yeah, Big Labor would go berserk.  But the Republican Congress that takes over in January would endear itself to Us, The People like gangbusters by hitting the ground running right over Red Barry and all his robber barons.  And with that kind of public support and enthusiasm, just imagine what else the GOP can accomplish?

There's no peaceful, comitous, gentle way to undo the massive damage that's been done to the country since the beginning of 2009.  It's gonna be an all-out war even if Pachyderms shrink from the challenge.  So why not take the Chris Christie approach?  It's the only way they'll accomplish anything worthwhile - and the best way to put the L'il President away in 2012.