A new rule by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board requires State & Local governments to calculate and report the total cost of promised health benefits for public employees starting in 2007.
The rule is a response to most states’ pay-as-you-go system of employee benefits, which has plenty of problems, just like the big federal government entitlements. States have previously never considered what their benefits promises would cost them in the future. Thus their total costs are actually rising quite a bit. One consulting firm estimates the national total to be $1 trillion. The response:
“The unions said that if governments were forced to disclose the cost of their plans, they would probably cut or drop them, just as companies have done”
So essentially the unions are complaining because the greater transparency will reveal what a bad idea it was to implement these programs. It’s not necessarily that we don’t want these programs, it’s just that the cities can’t afford them. Unfortunately, in all realms of politics, people don’t realize that you can’t have everything.
My response to the unions: Let the governments keep things the way they are now, as you want them. Then see how you like it when the governments go bankrupt, see their credit ratings plummet, fail to raise money to operate, see a mass emigration of citizens, and eventually become an actual suburban wasteland. [another h/t to MR, also see here to bypass NY Times registration]
0 Responses to “Unions: ‘We Want Less Transparency’”