My Opinion on a State Politics Issue

trigger warning

So this far leftist of the Slave Party, Colleen Pobur, is running for state representative. This is her little issues page:
 
 
THE ISSUES
Growing the Economy from the Middle Class Out
 
“The Great Recession might be over, but too many families are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to get by. Meanwhile, big corporations get massive tax breaks, even when they ship jobs overseas, and Lansing politicians favor special interests over the hardworking men and women of Michigan. Based on my experience in economic development, we need to support the small businesses in our community so they can create good-paying jobs right here. Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”
colleen-pobur-fair-share
Ah, the old, familiar cry of the social justice warrior: “pay your fair share!”, and “tax breaks favor the rich!” Colleen Pobur is, quite obviously, a tax and spend liberal.  You’d very quickly find that there isn’t a tax she doesn’t like.
For one, this is America.  Maybe she isn’t aware of this, and somebody needs to remind her.  In America, we don’t have “classes”.  If that’s what she wants, she should move someplace like Russia, or India.
“If democracy, in essence, means the abolition of class domination, then why should not a socialist minister charm the whole bourgeois world by orations on class collaboration?”

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’” (1901)

We have varying levels of income, but not social classes.  Those are artificial and destructive constructs by leftists, like yourself, Pobur.
Taxes?  If you want to improve the tax situation in Michigan, then you need to start by the simplification of the state codes, something people have been talking about for decades, and doing nothing about.  In fact, the best way would be to do it by making it mirror the original intent taxation model of the Founding Fathers and the Framers:  no direct taxation.
 
shocked-monkey1
Yep.  They did not like direct taxation, and fought against it.  What did we do?  We threw that fight, for politicians.  The only exception was capitation.

Direct Taxes

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 4

Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)

The Constitution was intended to give the national government greater power to raise revenue—the Articles of Confederation had been a fiscal disaster—but many Framers remained fearful of taxation. Indirect taxes (generally understood as falling on articles of consumption) did not lend themselves to congressional abuse (for reasons that will be described presently), but the Framers believed that “direct taxes” needed to be cabined. The cumbersome apportionment rule, requiring that a direct tax be apportioned among the states on the basis of population (so that, for example, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous state’s share of the national tax base were smaller), made the more dangerous taxes politically difficult for Congress to impose.

The effectiveness of apportionment as a limitation on congressional power obviously depends on the levies to which it applies, and students of the Founding disagree on this point. At one extreme, some scholars, citing Rufus King’s unanswered question at the Constitutional Convention (“Mr King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answd.”), have argued that “direct taxes” had no agreed-upon meaning, or, much the same thing, that the Framers did not think through what they were doing. They created an apportionment scheme so unworkable that a cramped definition of “direct taxes” became necessary to prevent the collapse of the system.

Those views overstate the extent of the confusion in 1787. No interpretation of “direct taxes” can be consistent with all statements made at the time, but the Founding debates are full of references to two forms of taxation for which apportionment was clearly intended: capitation taxes (specifically denominated as direct in the Constitution) and taxes on land (generally including slaves as well). Although intended to be difficult, apportionment was not impossible. Between 1798 and 1861, Congress enacted several real-estate taxes, all with complex schemes for apportionment.

Either she’s not very bright (which wouldn’t surprise me), or she just doesn’t care about other people (which would make her a sociopath, which, again, wouldn’t surprise me, considering we’re talking about somebody from the Slave Party).
Let’s break down her drivel.
“Based on my experience in economic development,” 
She worked closely with the Granholm Administration of the State of Michigan.   Yeah, those were the boom years of Michigan.
Granholm was a lying, Canadian socialist, and Pobur loved her for it.  That, right there, should disqualify her from handling ANYbody else’s money.
“…we need to support the small businesses in our community so they can create good-paying jobs right here. Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”
I think a lot of business owners, both large and small, would agree on the same thing:  if you really want to support them, GTF out of their way.
henry-david-thoreau-quote
Apparently, Pobur would disagree with that.  Increasing taxation on the larger corporations and business owners would do nothing but return us to the economic but years of that left wing psycho that looked like she was riding a coke high at the Democrat Klan Rally, some years ago.
granholm-animated
It’s basic economics.
Tax the people that make jobs, the result is they have fewer resources to do what they’re supposed to do, which is make profit.  To mitigate those government imposed losses, they’re going to cut expenses.  That usually means cutting JOBS.  That can take the form of reducing their work force, or leaving the state, altogether, both of which were common occurrences under that idiot, Granholm.

The State of Joblessness

The tragedy of Jennifer Granholm’s Michigan.

Updated Oct. 20, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET

State lawmakers will soon face large budget deficits again, perhaps as much as $100 billion across the U.S. Here’s some free budget-balancing advice: Steer clear of the Michigan model. The Wolverine state is once again set to run out of money, and it is once again poised to raise taxes even as jobs and businesses disappear.

In 2007 Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the biggest tax increase in Michigan history, with most of the $1.4 billion coming from business. The personal income tax—which hits nonincorporated small businesses—was raised to 4.2% from 3.95%, and the Michigan business tax levied a surcharge of 22%. The tax money was dedicated to the likes of education, public works, job retraining and corporate subsidies. Ms. Granholm and her union allies called these “investments,” and the exercise was widely applauded as a prototype of “progressive” budgeting.

Some prototype. Every state has seen a big jump in joblessness since 2007, but with a 15.2% unemployment rate Michigan’s jobs picture is by far the worst. Some 750,000 private-sector payroll jobs have vanished since the start of the decade. For every family that has moved into Michigan since 2007, two have sold their homes and left.

Meanwhile, the new business taxes didn’t balance the budget. Instead, thanks to business closures and relocations, tax receipts are running nearly $1 billion below projections and the deficit has climbed back to $2.8 billion. As the Detroit News put it, Michigan businesses are continually asked “to pay more in taxes to erase a budget deficit that, despite their contributions, never goes away.” And this is despite the flood of federal stimulus and auto bailout cash over the last year.

Following her 2007 misadventure, Ms. Granholm promised: “I’m not ever going to raise taxes again.” That pledge lasted about 18 months. Now she wants $600 million more. Among the ideas under consideration: an income tax increase with a higher top rate, a sales tax on services, a freeze on the personal income tax exemption (which would be a stealth inflation tax on all Michigan families), a 3% surtax on doctors, and fees on bottled water and cigarettes. To their credit, Republicans who control the Michigan Senate are holding out for a repeal of the 22% business tax surcharge.

As for Ms. Granholm, she and House speaker Andy Dillon continue to bow to public-sector unions. There are now 637,000 public employees in Michigan compared to fewer than 500,000 workers left in manufacturing. Government is the largest employer in the state, but the number of taxpayers to support these government workers is shrinking. The budget deadline is November 1, and Ms. Granholm is holding out for tax increases rather than paring back state government.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704322004574477363965641226

“Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”

This is how governments like hers “stimulate” the economy:  wealth redistribution. Unconstitutional, un-American wealth redistribution.

Here’s a novel idea that will never go through her mind:  get rid of direct taxation.  Or, if you don’t have the guts to do that, go to a capitation taxation system.  Counties with lesser populations would pay less than those with higher populations (which I still don’t like, because it puts uneven burdens on people, just on the basis of where they live).

Getting rid of direct taxation would mean that Michigan would have to tax things like buying and selling, and imports and exports.

NOTHING ELSE.

True, it would raise the prices of a lot of things (minus things like food and pharmaceuticals, if they have a lick of sense), but you’d also have a lot more money in your pockets to pay those things.

Another way to offset those taxes would be to stop listening to liberals like Pobur, and start exploiting Michigan’s natural resources of natural gas and oil.

http://info.drillinginfo.com/michigan-basin-geology-oil-and-gas/

National and international sales of oil and natural gas could be taxes, and bring in a lot of revenue.  Reducing the tax burden on companies large and small by the elimination of things like…

http://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,4676,7-238-43519—,00.html

https://www.thebalance.com/all-the-taxes-your-business-must-pay-399045

…would be the way to actually go in going a long way to creating jobs (which the government does not do), and stimulating the economy (government stimulus only stimulates the economy to work for cronies, and hurt everyone else that isn’t one).

seems legit
That’s because it is, Fry.
When businesses have more money, they spend more money.  That spending comes in several forms, such as expanding the business, and hiring new employees.  It also comes in the form of raising salaries and wages.  Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.  In turn, those employees go out and spend their money.  Not just on food and bills, but on other things.  For instance, with the stagnation of wages in comparison to the increases in the cost of living…
…the car companies, while still making a mint, could be making a lot more money.  Why aren’t they?  One reason is because we’re holding onto cars for a lot longer.
…and because too many Millennials are stupid hippie losers that want to live off their parents and the state.
bors-millennial-comicstrip4
Remember those lists of taxes?  Just imagine of auto makers weren’t getting massive tax credits, and weren’t getting hit with massive tax bills, either.  Just imagine how that could affect the prices of cars?  If auto maker “A” lowers it’s prices, dramatically, and auto maker “B”, does not, guess who’s going to get more profit?
(Since we all know that leftists are economic illiterates, I’ll just tell you:  it’s auto maker “A”.)
If all they were paying for (in taxes) was buying materials, auto sales, importing and exporting, that’s a lot less money, leaving them to expand, do better vehicle R&D and pay their employees more.  Why would they pay more?  You leftists have a short memory, when it comes to things you don’t want to remember.
Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.
Somebody said that, earlier.
Buying more cars is an economic stimulus.  It helps businesses, which means they can spend more on employees, making better products, etc.
People may also want to do things like buy houses.  With taxes being reduced on materials and production, that means housing prices could fall, too.
“Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”
lenin-on-taxation
What would really ease the tax  burdens on Michigan families (and individuals, who are just as important) is getting rid of politicians like yourself, and, as I said before, ditching the onerous tax codes of Michigan.
colleen-pobur-lenin-taxes
People should be able to keep more of their own money.  Period.  Politicians like Pobur should be kept out of politics, because they have too much of a vested interest in spending money on things that they shouldn’t be spending taxpayer monies out of the State Treasury on (like infanticide, for instance).  Social Security, for instance, is an unconstitutional tax.  If the People and the States worked out their retirement on their own, they’d be a lot better off.  The People are always better with their own money, than the government will ever be.  Getting a 401k, or IRA, or whatever, is going to pay off a lot better than a social security check.  Social Security is looking at insolvency.  It’s own actuary says so.

Over the last 15 years, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary has consistently underestimated retirees’ life expectancy and made other errors that make the finances of the retirement system look significantly better than they are ,  a new study by two Harvard and one Dartmouth academics concludes. The report, being published today by the Journal of Economic Perspectives, is the first, the authors say, to compare the government agency’s past demographic and financial forecasts with actual results.

In a second paper appearing today in Political Analysis, the three researchers offer their theory of  why the Actuary Office’s predictions have apparently grown less reliable since 2000:  the civil servants who run it have responded to increased political polarization surrounding Social Security “by hunkering down” and resisting outside pressures—not only from the politicians, but also from outside technical experts. “While they’re insulating themselves from the politics, they also insulate themselves from the data and this big change in the world –people started living longer lives,’’ coauthor Gary King, a leading political scientist and director of Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science, said in an interview Thursday. “They need to take that into account and change the forecast as a result of that.”

And while anybody that reads this blog knows I’m not a Trump booster…
rednecks for trump
…nor a fan of too many of his fans, he’s right:  social security has been making payments to illegal aliens.
If they aren’t able to collect any benefits, then why does the social security site give such advice as this?:
It’s already happening, and we’re paying for this.
Government needs to stop dipping into corporations pockets to pay for other peoples’ retirement funds.  In their unlawful ‘lifestyle taxation’, they’re reducing corporate resources, which, in turn, reduce what corporations big and small can do with those resources.  What could they do with that money that’s unconstitutionally taken from them?
When businesses have more money, they spend more money.  That spending comes in several forms, such as expanding the business, and hiring new employees.  It also comes in the form of raising salaries and wages.  Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.
And what would people do with that money?
In turn, those employees go out and spend their money.  Not just on food and bills, but on other things.
Seems like common sense, and it is.
Unless you’re a liberal.
colleen-pobur-give-me-your-money
margaret-thatcher-on-pobur
In terms of payout, individual retirement plans – either through a bank or such job programs as the 401k – will have a higher yield, than a social security check.  Furthermore, let’s not forget that if you ‘make too much money’, you can’t collect what you put in, and they give it to someone else.  Also, you can’t will that money to your surviving family, if you die.  Again, it goes to someone else the government deems more worthy of your money, than your own spouse, children or parents.
Pobur likes this.
colleen-pobur-tax-the-shit-out-of-you
The way to create the highly skilled workforce Michigan needs to attract and retain businesses is by ensuring every child gets a great education. Access to quality public education shouldn’t be determined by ZIP code. We need to fully fund Michigan schools so that all kids get the education they need to take the next step in life. And if that next step is a college, university or trade school, we need to support higher education so that students don’t graduate with mountains of debt or are simply priced out of a bright future.
Truly the words of an economic illiterate, just like I said.
Michigan could have the greatest workforce in the country, but if the economic environment is inhospitable to business, then it’s not going to matter.  They’re not going to come to the state, and they’re not going to stay here, that are here.  Right now, Michigan barely made the top 10.
During the Granholm Years which you want us to return to, we couldn’t break the top 40.
If we want quality education, one of the things we need to do is keep Washington DC out of our classrooms.
An example of Washington’s influence was/is Common Core, and it’s easy to see it’s a common failure, like all leftist, social engineering programs, disguised as education.
We also need to get Big Labor out of the schools:  i.e.:  the unions.
Education of children should be guided by the parents, with the advice and consent of the government.  I believe that goes back to a concept called:  “government by the consent of the governed” (something I’m sure Pobur is not familiar with).
Pobur, in a debate I’d attended with her, weeks ago, advocates throwing money at problems, in order to solve them, instead of actually solving them.  Detroit spends more money per student than a lot of other, better off cities, and their schools suck,
and a lot of their students suck worse.
That means she’s all in on throwing good money after bad, as far as the Detroit Public School System goes.  That’s money out of everybody’s pockets.  If it was only Detroit paying, I’d be fine with it, but it isn’t.  Detroit’s unionized teachers have graphically demonstrated that not only are they not part of the solution, but they don’t want to be, either.
There are a lot of things that have to be done, including eliminating the unions, altogether.  Parents have to have a choice with their schooling.  If we want to improve education and economics, we have to work with those big, mean corporations that Pobur hates so much.
warrenn-buffett-money-for-rich-people
How about the People and the States working together on education and creating a better, more fertile business environment for businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals to grow, minus petty bureaucrats like Pobur?
Just imagine this for a charter school:
The governor, state AG and treasurer get together with several companies/corporations and let them know that in Michigan, their tax load would be very limited, in comparison to all other states, and the vast majority of the world.
Taxes?  If you want to improve the tax situation in Michigan, then you need to start by the simplification of the state codes, something people have been talking about for decades, and doing nothing about.  In fact, the best way would be to do it by making it mirror the original intent taxation model of the Founding Fathers and the Framers:  no direct taxation.
That, right there, would be incentive for a lot of corporations to relocate their HQs to Michigan, or, minimally, invest in creating an infrastructure there, if they didn’t officially “move”.  This will create more jobs in the State, and make it easier for a lot of parents to actually take care of their kids.
Let’s address something Pobur didn’t:  school lunch quality.
They suck.  Fast food chains have far superior standards.  So, let’s just imagine another economic stimulus:  allowing open, regularly renewed bidding by restaurant chains that serve healthy meals to serve food in school cafeterias in this prototype charter school. Simplified menus from places like Arby’s, steakhouses, vegan restaurants, etc.  All at prices comparable (or lower) than average school lunches.  Same for the possibility of breakfasts.  Superior foods that students will like, and will be beneficial to students that are involved in athletics, as well.  I can cover this more in depth, later.
Back to the education aspects.
Just imagine that the governor, working in conjunction with parents and the corporations find out what kind of workforce those corporations they’re trying to entice into the state want.  Just imagine retirees from organizations like NASA, Lockheed-Martin, Pfizer, Boeing, BASF, Exxon-Mobil, DuPont, etc., being hired as teachers to teach subjects like mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, etc.  People that not only know what they’re doing, but have done it.  This would be a case of those that could, doing, and those that could also teaching.
People – experts – not beholden to unions, people only there to teach.
That’s just one solution.
Another solution to address student loan debt?
If we want quality education, one of the things we need to do is keep Washington DC out of our classrooms.
We also need to get Big Labor out of the schools:  i.e.:  the unions.
Oh, wait.  Didn’t I say that, already?
One of the biggest problems with colleges is the expense.  Want to make it more accessible to the People?
STOP SUBSIDIZING IT.
Schools, believe it, or not, actually do raise money, on their own, without Uncle Sugar.
  1. Oregon – $196 million in revenue, $110.4 million in expenses ($56 million revenue/$29 million profit).
  2. Texas – $161 million in revenue, $154.1 million in expenses ($113 million revenue/$74 million profit).
  3. Michigan – $157.9 million in revenue, $142.6 million in expenses ($91 million revenue/$65 million profit).
  4. Alabama – $153.2 million in revenue, $120.2 million in expenses ($95 million revenue/$53 million profit).
  5. Ohio State – $145.2 million in revenue, $113.9 million in expenses ($66 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  6. LSU – $133.7 million in revenue, $123 million in expenses ($88 million revenue/$50 million profit).
  7. Oklahoma – $129.2 million in revenue, $113.4 million in expenses ($71 million revenue/$43 million profit).
  8. Wisconsin – $127.9 million in revenue, $125.1 million in expenses ($47.3 million revenue, profit not listed).
  9. Florida – $124.6 million in revenue, $109.7 million in expenses ($69 million revenue/$46 million profit).
  10. Texas A&M – $119.5 million in revenue, $95.7 million in expenses ($58 million revenue/$34 million profit).
  11. Oklahoma State – $117.8 million in revenue, $109.6 million in expenses ($49 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  12. Penn State – $117.6 million in revenue, $117.4 million in expenses ($68 million revenue/$37 million profit).
  13. Auburn – $113.7 million in revenue, $126.5 million in expenses ($50 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  14. Tennessee – $107.5 million in revenue, $106.2 million in expenses ($70 million revenue/$49 million profit).
  15. Minnesota – $106.2 million in revenue, $106.2 million in expenses ($39.8 million revenue, profit not listed).
  16. Iowa – $106 million in revenue, $102.3 million in expenses ($53.6 million revenue, profit not listed).
  17. Florida State – $104.8 million in revenue, $98.9 million in expenses ($57.4 million revenue, profit not listed).
  18. Michigan State – $104.7 million in revenue, $107.4 million in expenses ($53 million revenue/$26 million profit).
  19. Georgia – $103.5 million in revenue, $92.6 million in expenses ($77 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  20. Washington – $100.3 million in revenue, $86.1 million in expenses ($68 million revenue/$39 million profit).
Barack Obama was such a great help in student debt.
When he announced his candidacy in 2007, Barack Obama looked like he could be the one to finally stand up to the student lending system.  He was one of only two members on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee not to have taken money from the Sallie Mae PAC.  In this position he was privy to HELP Committee  and other reports detailing a broad swath of illegal and deceptive activities by the lenders, the universities, and even the Department of Education.  

His rhetoric about making college “affordable” sounded great.  The deletion of most every standard consumer protection (like bankruptcy and statutes of limitations) from student loans had caused a hyper-inflationary market, and a systemically predatory lending system that was lives and livelihoods of millions of people. The nation’s student loan debt had skyrocketed to $450 billion, and the Department of Education had actually begun turning a profit on defaults.

So when Obama was elected, largely due to overwhelming support from young people, it was assumed that he would make things right. But he did nothing to bring back any standard consumer protections.  His administration did nothing to curb the predatory collection powers of the student lending system.  College prices increased faster than previously, and today the average undergraduate is now leaving school with $35,000 in debt, up from about $17,000 when Obama announced.

By the time Obama leaves office next year, the nation will have added $1 Trillion to its student debt tab. 

What the Obama administration did do was great for the federal government, not the students.  Obama federalized the system to where the government now profitsimmensely from both interest on loans it makes directly to students, and defaults. To say that the federal government now sits atop the most predatory lending system in our nation’s history is not an understatement.

obama-laughing-about-blowing-debt
That’s right, liberals.  Obama is a predatory lender.
When universities raise their credit hour rates to astronomical levels, they do so knowing full well that the federal government will pay anything they want.  The government loans will just keep a’comming, for whatever amount universities demand.  The last I saw, the Constitution didn’t allow for that.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 7

That’s the Appropriations Clause.
“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements.” – Thomas Jefferson
“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” – Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, November 29, 1802
Too bad Jefferson didn’t care as much about Human rights for Blacks, but I digress.
“Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin
Independent banks and credit unions are not going to make loan payments equivalent to giving universities the moon and the stars, and the universities would know this.  When they face the very real specter of closing their doors, thanks to reduced enrollment and skyrocketing debt…
…maybe they’ll wake up, and change the way they do things.
Or, maybe not.
locked-doors
Like someone said, earlier:
When businesses have more money, they spend more money.  That spending comes in several forms, such as expanding the business, and hiring new employees.  It also comes in the form of raising salaries and wages.  Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.
The university that offers a quality education at lower prices is the one that’s going to get people beating down it’s doors to get in.  Those that don’t?  The only beating they’ll hear is their own fists on the padlocked university doors, begging to get back on the gravy train.
gravy-train
No more money from the federal government, or from states that don’t have constitutional provisions that allow for it.  Students need to get loans from banks.  The government shouldn’t be in the business of drafting loans.  Unions are going to have to be brought under control, as with the lower schools, and tenure is going to have to go the way of the dinosaur, if the schools want to survive the Brave, New World they’ve created for themselves.
Liberals always seem to want to tell people how much money they can make.  Maybe they should start with themselves.

The average annual income in North Carolina is just over $40,000. But senior-level bureaucrats in the University of North Carolina system’s General Administration (GA)—who take home six-figure salaries—say they need a raise. This Friday, the system’s Board of Governors will vote on a proposed salary range increase that will “assure that [UNC] has the ability to match and, when necessary, lead market in compensating hard to recruit or retain executive talent.” 

The increases are “designed to [promote] good stewardship of State and University budgetary resources,” which certainly sounds as if system officials intend to perform the remarkable act of keeping costs low by…raising costs. 

While it is not clear how the state higher education establishment’s upper crust can, in the name of fiscal prudence, ask for such raises with a straight face, it is clear that top-level employees in the GA and across the state’s 16 public universities are among the highest-paid public employees in the state. 

For instance, UNC system president Thomas Ross, who heads the GA, earns $550,000 per year, $30,000 more than the chancellors at UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State University (other chancellors in the system earn between $240,000 and $325,000). The GA employs 68 people who earn more than $100,000 per year, and 8 who earn more than $200,000. 

But that’s just for starters. The system’s 16 universities employ 47,894 people. Of those employees, 1,039, or 2.17 percent, earn more than $200,000 and 6,243, or 13 percent, earn more than $100,000. Compared to the rest of state government, these are astounding figures. Of the 87,364 state employees (from the departments of commerce, transportation, health and human services, and so forth), only 56, or 0.06 percent, earn more than $200,000, and just 1,900, or 2.17 percent, earn more than $100,000. 

Many argue that chancellor, system administrator, and professor salaries are based on higher education’s market rates, and that if they were to be reduced, top talent would flee to other states and university systems. Let’s, for the sake of argument, ignore the steady stream of scandals and politically correct inanities emanating from some UNC campuses—which would suggest the “talent” may not be as “top” as advertised—and assume that our “public servants” in the UNC aristocracy don’t come cheap. Some other university positions, however, don’t come close to passing the smell test.

I could say more, on this subject, but I’m sure you get the point.
Next subject.
Holding Government Accountable
When I worked for Detroit Metro Airport, I took over for politicians who awarded 40-year, no-strings-attached contracts and turned the concessions program in the McNamara terminal into an efficient operation that garnered multiple awards. I know citizens are fed up with backroom deals and special interests run amok. People shouldn’t have to wonder what their government is up to. When I get to Lansing, I’ll make sure the Legislature operates in the light of day, and I’ll take my experience from the Plymouth City Commission of creating smart budgets to make sure your tax dollars are spent wisely.
no bullshit
This sounds great, but face it.  We know she’s lying.  She’s all in on keeping the unions running they way they are, which are basically money laundering machines for leftist politicians, like herself.  The Slave Party sees to it that some funds are funneled into their pockets, and, in turn, they funnel some of those funds back into the coffers (and private pockets) of their pet patron politician.  If you want accountability, be Conservative, politically (that doesn’t mean “republican”).  Obey laws.  Elect those that also obey laws.
I’m sure you get the point.
I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.
great-seal-of-virus-x
Advertisements

~ by virusx on November 6, 2016.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: