Archive for August 30th, 2006
Many times Free New York, Inc. has brought to the public’s attention the wage disparity between public and private sector workers in our area. This has been pointed out by other sources as well. The wage disparity contributes to the overall economic decline of our region and is indicative of the power that the public sector unions have over our current crop of elected officials, with a few rare exceptions.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has recently released a study showing a huge disparity between the average wage of Federal employees and private sector employees.
Below is a condensed synopsis and analysis of the study. You can read the full article, written by Paul Jacob, here.
Let us now praise the underpaid, selfless civil servant.
Does such a person exist in federal employ?
Hard to find. As the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported this month, federal civil servants receive far, far more in wages and benefits than workers in the private sector. Indeed, twice as much.
Average compensation for federal civilian workers last year came to $106,579 — which Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute notes is “exactly twice the average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector.” Throw out the benefits and the difference is less, but still a whopping 62 percent.
This is just the unvarnished truth. Then put it into context, like Mr. Edwards does: “Federal workers receive generous health benefits during work and retirement, a pension plan with inflation protection, a retirement savings plan with generous matching contributions, large disability benefits, and union protections.” Let me stop. There’s lots more, but I don’t want to wear out my vocal cords.
Figuring in all the benefits, Edwards suggests that government employees should be paid less than private sector employees, not more. But don’t hold your breath.
So, why is federal employee compensation so high? Well, maybe it’s the fact that politicians love giving away the store to big special interests and the public employees unions have become a big, if not the biggest, special interest group.
Bill Online Easily, Fast & Free with PayPal. No Software Needed. Sign Up Now!
According to an article printed on August 16, 2006 in the National Law Journal, proposed net neutrality regulations violate the 1st Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers.
But an often overlooked and underappreciated one is that net-neutrality mandates likely would violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the ISPs, such as Verizon Communications Inc. or Comcast Corp., to which they would apply. This is a case where greater sensitivity paid to constitutional values will lead to sound policy.
The article goes on to caution against unwarranted legislation to address problems that do not even exist.
It is generally agreed that except for a few isolated and quickly remedied incidents, neither the cable operators nor the telephone companies providing broadband Internet services have blocked, impaired or otherwise restricted subscriber access to the content of unaffiliated entities. As a matter of policy, Congress should be very hesitant to pass a law in anticipation of conjectured harms that may never materialize. As the Internet continues to evolve, such a law almost certainly would turn out to be overly broad in application, restricting efficient business arrangements that otherwise would allow ISPs to make available services demanded by consumers at lower costs. Moreover, the vague terms of the mandates would be grist for the litigation mills for years to come.
The net neutrality legislation is compared to the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC that was supposedly in the public’s interest by guaranteeing equality in access for political speech. The actual result was less information for the public because the media cut back on broadcasting anything political for fear of violating the regulation. Ultimately, the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned two decades ago.
Net neutrality legislation would reverse a 2005 Supreme Court decision and add 5th Amendment concerns to the violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
In effect, what the net-neutrality proposals really seek to do, without saying so directly, is to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Services by turning ISPs into common carriers required to carry all messages indifferently. In addition to the problematical First Amendment implications, to do so would implicate the Fifth Amendment takings clause, because it is questionable whether compelled access to the ISPs’ private property would be found to be a public use.
Important constitutional interests are at stake in the raging net-neutrality debate. Greater appreciation for these constitutional values, especially freedom of speech, is likely to lead to sounder communications policy.
The unlawful breech of the ISP’s private property rights would result in higher prices for consumers combined with less innovation and improvements in broadband service.
Late addition: I am happy to see that I am not alone in the local blogosphere opposing net neutrality. Ryan has posted his very insightful thoughts on his blog.
Netflix Delivers DVDs to your home. NO LATE FEES. Try for FREE!
According to a poll in a Buffalo News story today, Western New York residents have a significantly higher rate of dissatisfaction with State government than the rest of the State. While this does not surprise me it belies the laissez-faire attitude we see at the polls at election time. Voter turnouts are usually low and the same tired incumbents, who put us in this mess, are frequently reelected. There are a few exceptions, but not enough to make a meaningful change.
The voters need to translate their dissatisfaction into results not only in November, but also in the primary elections on September 12. There are 2 democrats running for the party line in the Primary. Suozzi, who as a track record of financial turn-around combined with specific ideas to spur economic growth, and Spitzer, the leader at the moment with a huge war chest provided by unions and special interests. It doesn’t take a Ph.D in political science, with a minor in economics, to figure out which candidate is more qualified and more likely to make the decisions necessary for positive change.
We need a Governor who will take on the unions and special interests, not embrace them with open arms while lapping up their support. We need a Governor who will take on the special interests and the powerful politicians that put their wants and needs ahead of the taxpayers’. Spitzer is where he is today because of the influences of the well-heeled interests that make NYS inhospitable to business.
The results of the poll in the News are meaningless unless the voters of WNY turn out heavily on Primary Day and pull the lever for Tom Suozzi.
