Playing games and holding us hostage

I am getting real tired of the left’s usual tactic of threatening to, or actually go through with their threats, to cut critical services first whenever budget battles come up. Here in my state of Connecticut, our new democrat governor, in order to pretend he is asking everyone to “share equally in the financial burden”, caused by our legislators – which have been dominated by the left for many decades, with all the usual consequences and bullshit – spending like drunken sailors on a rampage, promised us a billion dollars in public union concessions in return for the largest tax hike ever enacted, I hear the real figure is close to $3 billion over the next 2 years, and when the unions whom own the left balked, threatened them with layoffs. Of course, it was all for show.

Now the shit hit the fan, the unions are not budging as expected, and the layoffs are supposedly starting, but instead of cutting the damned parasites working at the DMV or other such useless government money pits, the first measly group, less than 400 in all, targeted all are critical providers, like Department of Corrections officers – the guys that keep the jails running- and state troopers, which provide for security.

At a minimum the strategy is that since these people are critical, reversing the layoffs a few months down the line, hopefully when the state has more money, or even if they don’t and they can lay blame for something bad that happens on the lack of manpower, is all but a given. After all, less police dealing with crime or correction officers watching the psychopaths in jail, is a dangerous thing for us all. Of course, the people getting laid off will all be the younger harder working, and cheaper to keep employees too. It also pisses me off that the media, as is in the case of this news here in Connecticut, then never points out this is a choice, and a callous one at that, intentionally made by these leftists to prey on people, and that they are playing political games and risking the lives of the people for their own personal gain.

The choice to layoff these critical employees that provide valuable services, with possible serious implications, is not a coincidence. This is the SOP on the left when they are put in a position where they have to cut the bloated government bureaucracy, don’t really want to do it, and hope the cuts will put pressure on the public to reverse their stance government is too big. And our Petulant in chief collectivist in DC is doing more of the same when he threatens to target Social Security for seniors and Veteran benefits, then gets pissed when the right calls his bluff.

Here in Connecticut we are basically screwed, because the left owns the god dammed government – which means the public unions do – and we are not going to get any redress to this situation. But we don’t have to put up with this shit at the federal level. If Boehner had any sense he would immediately put together a bill in the House that would mandate government fund Social Security, Medicare, veteran benefits, the military, and any other interests they do not want the left to hold hostage during this fight, then dare Reid and Obama to vote it down or veto it, leaving no doubt whom is playing games with us. Then point out that despite the left’s new found “optimism” that an unemployment number over 9% is signs of things getting better, while contrasting the way they used to report unemployment at the low end of 4% when the guy in the WH had a different letter next to his name.

Seriously, republicans need to stand fast and tell Obama and the left that we need cuts now – not promises of cuts in a decade – to get government spending under control, that any new revenue steam will only be used to pay down debt, not prop up the impossible to keep bloated social system, that we have to reform these bloated systems to make them work for the future, and that they should stop the games. The fiscal insanity has to end, and then in a way that it grows the economy, not the left’s big government.

Comments are closed.

  1. JimK

    Not even joking when I say that the first opportunity we get to leave, we are exiting CT with the QUICKNESS. Gonna be a few years before we can go, and unfortunately this state is getting significantly worse every 6 months. And yet CT Democrats keep doubling down on more and more of the exact policies that have led us to financial ruin and a severe brain drain.

    Fucking blue states, I swear to God. We never, ever learn.

    Thumb up 1

  2. hist_ed

    This is the SOP on the left when they are put in a position where they have to cut the bloated government bureaucracy, don’t really want to do it, and hope the cuts will put pressure on the public to reverse their stance government is too big.

    Everyone needs to remember this when reading about cuts. Whenever I see a announcement about a school district cutting teachers I want to know how many people they employ in their main office administration. My district office employs a huge number of people. For every person whose job description you can figure out (payroll clerk, substitute coordinator, transportation manager) there is another who I can’t figure out what they do (Principal on special assignment, literacy curriculum developer, learning community director). And the ones with the nebulous titles all make a lot more money than me. Shit, we have four people who are new teacher mentors. In normal years, the help around 100 new teachers get through their first year or two. Last year, instead of 100 new teachers we hired about 20. Did we cut 3 of the 4 new teacher mentors? Nope, they were found make work positions to keep them busy for the year (apparently no one thought they should actually return to the classroom and teach).

    Education bureaucracies (probably all other government bureaucracies) are self reinforcing. Those of us who recognize the insanity of the system frequently throw up our hands and leave (I consider quitting every year-mainly because of crazy admin issues). Those who thrive in this shit stay. And those that hear about the nice safe do nothing jobs and think “Wow, I’d really love to have that job” are the next generation of leadership.

    Thumb up 2

  3. AlexInCT *

    Yeah hist_ed, I was going to point that out as another one of those examples of “getting rid of those that add value, while leaving the ones we should be cutting untouched” but never go to it. This tactic HAS to end. We need to squash the left’s strategy of always cutting the essential and leaving the wasters there, knowing that they can then just hire those they let go and more back whenever, by claiming the poor CHILRUNS! are being hurt.

    It’s despicable how they callously screw with our safety, our kid’s education and welfare, and our pocketbooks to increase their power, and the MSM goes along and parrots their bullshit, making them look like concerned heroes, when they are both threaten and act on the threats knowing full well what they are doing is causing harm. Shame on us for not going bonkers whenever we see this shit.

    Thumb up 1

  4. AlexInCT *

    I have been willing to leave since a year after my wife & I moved here back in 1989. It’s been downhill, and downhill fast, with the left constantly making life for anyone but the parasites that keep voting for them a living hell. Unfortunately my wife doesn’t want to leave.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Mississippi Yankee

    Not once anywhere, since Minnesota went bust, have I seen a single comparison between that state going bankrupt and shutting down and the US govt. hitting the debt ceiling. How come?

    After two full weeks the unions and the (D) governor have decided to come around to the (R) way of thinking and cuts will be made, some even deep ones.

    Many blue states, especially in the north east, will never have the opportunity to do as MN did because they can’t find that many honest people to stand up to the corruption that is rampant there. In some cases Connecticut is even worse than Massachusetts IMHO.

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT *

    Your problem MY is that you expect the media to point out that what they believe in has yet again proven to be wrong, and that the political party they are beholden to seems hell bent on ignoring the mechanics of the real world for whatever reason, and that’s about as likely to happen as I am to decide I want to believe the things liberals do again (I quit that at about the age of 12).

    The republicans should hold firm. When the deal doesn’t get done and government stops having the ability to borrow money, the left will be forced to accept that they can not keep doing what they are doing. The world will not end. Sanity might actually finally prevail.

    Thumb up 0

  7. hist_ed

    The problem with this is politics. A couple of weeks ago I was in the “let’s hit the limit and then use that to get reform” but I have come around in large part because the GOP seems to be losing the war of words. I really like Krauthammer’s suggestion-the GOP house should pass a small rise in the limit with a small cut in spending-500 billion*-and then dare OBama and dems in the Senate to kill it. If they do, then presto, the Dems own the shutdown. If they pass it and Obama signs it then he is further weakened because he has been insisting on a grand bargain. This also has the advantage of returning to the issue next year-something Obama really doesn’t want.

    Thumb up 2

  8. Kimpost

    But a failure to do a long term deal means no recovery (or at least a slower one), until the issue actually is resolved. The markets won’t trust the institutions if they don’t know what the situation will be six months from now. Hence, less investment.

    Here’s for kicking the issue down the road, at least until either party wins both houses and the presidency. Well, that or both sides could get serious and act responsibly. Yeah right…

    Thumb up 0

  9. hist_ed

    I just came across this:
    It shows the administrative bloat that has hit the California University system (by a professor in that system). Money quote:

    In 1975, there were three full time faculty members per administrator, but now there are actually slightly more administrators than full-time faculty. If this trend continues, there could be two administrators per full-time faculty in another generation.

    Thumb up 0