This page was last updated on March 22, 2011.
What sacrifices is he making?; Jane V. Delanko; Beaver County Times; March 21, 2011.
Between September 2004 and September 2007, the Times published at least eight letters from Ms. Delanko (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). All bashed the Bush administration in one form or another and the last six were about getting out of Iraq. Since then, we haven’t heard a peep from Ms. Delanko about Iraq. Other than today’s letter, the only one I know about since 2007 was in 2010 when Ms. Delanko supported U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-4) for voting against Obamacare because “this law will be throwing the elderly under the bus” (“Health-care reform will hurt the elderly,” 4/1/10). Given Ms. Delanko’s history of repeating Democrat talking points, the 2010 letter surprised me a bit until I read a Times article a couple of months later. In “Memories of steel” (Larissa Theodore, Beaver County Times; June 23, 2010), I learned Ms. Delanko was 81 years old.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Gov. Tom Corbett is talking about sacrifices.
“Is he making any? Will he freeze his salary for a year or take away his free health insurance, transportation and large expense accounts?”
[RWC] “Will he freeze his salary for a year?” This is an example of the debater/lawyer adage that goes something like “don’t ask a question for which you don’t know the answer.” According to The Patriot-News, “Gov.-elect Tom Corbett plans to forgo the nearly $3,000 cost-of-living adjustment that a 1995 law grants to the governor next year. He said he will instead accept the current $174,914 salary that is attached to the governor’s office and give the rest to charity.”
Ms. Delanko’s position about “free health insurance” is a popular one but it ignores an important fact; government employee “health insurance” isn’t “free” for the employee. That’s because “health insurance” is part of their compensation (salary, vacation, other benefits), just like private-sector employees with employer-based medical insurance. This means the Governor foots the bill for his “health insurance” even though the premium paid by their employer (in this case PA citizens) on his behalf doesn’t appear on his pay stubs. To be fair, if the Governor were required to increase how much he paid out of pocket for his “health insurance,” some other part of his compensation should increase to offset the new out-of-pocket expense. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t like employer-based medical insurance whether it’s for private or public employees. The point of my comment is to note employer-based medical insurance isn’t free for the employee even if he pays nothing for it out of pocket.
“[T]ransportation and large expense accounts” are only for official business.
FYI, the proposed budget cuts spending by the Governor’s office to $6.2 million; down from $6.4 million this year and $6.8 million in 2009-2010. This doesn’t include spending cuts for the executive and Lt. Governor’s offices.
“Are they reducing the size of the Legislature?”
[RWC] I always supported downsizing the General Assembly and still do, but even if we could reduce its cost to zero (and we can’t) we’re talking about only 1.1% of the General Fund budget. While just about every aspect of government spending needs to be cut, the really big-ticket items need the most attention. And that leads us to …
“Where are we going with this budget? He is picking on public education. Our youth of today are the leaders of our future.”
[RWC] Please read my critique of “Corbett’s priorities make no sense” (Don Skinner, 3/13/11). Even in the proposed budget, General Fund spending on education is 38.9% of the total. Health & human services is in first place with 43.5% of the total. Simple addition (82.4%) tells us no other category even comes close to these two. “Protection of Persons and Property” comes in a distant third at only 11.2%.
“Now, he’s warning the unions about concessions in salaries. At least 29 states are in trouble, and cuts must be made.
“But why is it the middle class and the poor who are always first to have to make these sacrifices? The states that are unionized are more successful than nonunion states, yet union privileges, which were the stronghold of the middle class, are being taken away.”
[RWC] I swear, if the end were near, we’d see a headline like “World ends tomorrow; middle class and the poor to sacrifice most.” It’s not original but it fits here. Ms. Delanko fails to look at the other side of the ledger. If we didn’t cut, who would have to pay? You could tax “the rich” dry and not make a dent, and they’d be gone the next year anyway. (Note: At the federal level and based on 2008 income tax data, the top 1% of filers paid 38% of the total and the top 5% paid 59%. I don’t know the figures for PA taxes.) If we don’t cut spending, the false alternative of raising tax rates wouldn’t help because it would cut economic activity. All you would get is a larger percentage of less taxable income/property. Even if it did work, the sheer size of “the middle class and the poor” relative to “the rich” means “the middle class and the poor” would have to pick up a big chunk of the tax increases. Since I don’t know Ms. Delanko’s definition of “the rich,” I have no way of knowing how many there are.
“The states that are unionized are more successful than nonunion states?” On what grounds does Ms. Delanko make this claim? Only 6.9% of all private-sector employees belong to a labor union, and that includes employees forced to join a labor union by closed-shop laws.
Ms. Delanko claims “union privileges … are being taken away” but fails to note we’re talking solely about public employees. What did FDR and George Meany think of public-sector unions? FDR (patron saint of lefties) opposed public-sector labor unions. In a 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward (President of the National Federation of Federal Employees), FDR wrote, “… meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.” Likewise, George Meany (first president of the AFL-CIO, 1955-1979) opposed collective bargaining for public sector employees.
When politicians negotiate with labor union management, they negotiate with people who will return part of what they win to the politicians via taxpayer-funded campaign contributions. It’s called a conflict of interest. There’s a reason 93% of labor union management PAC contributions to federal candidates (over $62 million) went to Democrat candidates in 2010.
“There are too many tax breaks for the rich. Cut [sic] are being made in the wrong direction.”
[RWC] Ms. Delanko doesn’t describe the “too many tax breaks for the rich.” Why not?
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.