Questions of the Day.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Let's say a guy making good money as a lawyer goes out and buys a $200,000 house, which is about what he can afford for his family. After a while, he decides he no longer likes his chosen career path and decides to go into a new field. He decides to go into the arts, where he brings home $25 grand a year making ceramic pots. He can no longer make the payments on his $200,000 house.
Pissed off, he rants to his neighbors about how the house is bankrupting him. If it wasn’t for the bank, he would be financially stable and his ceramic pot business would be doing just fine.
- Is it the bank's fault that this guy voluntarily cut his own pay?
- Is it a retired cop/teacher/firefighter’s fault that State legislators cut the State’s income over the last couple decades and now the State cannot meet it’s financial and legal obligations?
3 comments:
Short answer, no. I don't have a problem with a state negotiating with groups of retired people if this type of situation happens, but I agree that they have an obligation (legal and moral) to the former employees.
Not a bad analogy. People negotiated in good faith, but then Republicans (and some Democrats) decided that cutting taxes would not cause them problems. Now, they can't fulfill what they promised, and as you suggest, are blaming the middle class workers.
This is a self-created problem. As you so clearly note.
Excellent analogy. You'll get all sorts of conservatives on the hook with the first part, and then club them over the head with the second one before they realize what's happened.
Post a Comment