Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Local government’ Category

I’ve been asked whether I’m a hypocrite because I support decentralization while at the same time being critical of state and local governments.

I don’t think there’s any inconsistency in my position. Here’s some of what I wrote last July.

I’m a strong believer in federalism, but not because I think state and local governments are competent. Politicians and interest groups are a toxic combination in all circumstance. But at least people have considerable ability to cross borders if they want to escape greedy and despotic governments at the state and local level. And when the geese with the golden eggs can fly away, this facilitates competition between governments and forces politicians to restrain their appetites.

Maybe I’m just daft (as my leftist friends often claim), but I think that’s a perfectly defensible position.

Anyhow, I feel compelled to give that bit of background because it’s once again time to mock state and local governments.

Here’s an excerpt from the Detroit News that tells you everything you’ll ever need to know about the stupidity of government. The city actually loses money on parking enforcement.

The city is paying $32 to issue and process a $30 parking violation, and it hasn’t adjusted rates since 2001. On top of that, about half of Detroit’s 3,404 parking meters are not operating properly at any given time, says Orr’s spokesman, Bill Nowling.

Wow, this must be an all-time record. A local government can’t even fleece people competently.

The only thing more shocking is when the government is too incompetent to give away money, which actually happened with one boondoggle in the United Kingdom.

Now let’s travel a few thousand miles and look at another example of how Washington isn’t the only place where government does strange things.

I’ve written many times about the lavish pay and gold-plated benefits of bureaucrats, but cops in Hawaii may have set a new record for fringe benefits. Or maybe this is a new version of friends with fringe benefits, to coin a phrase.

Here are the fun (and PG-13-rated) details in Jacob Sullum’s article in Reason.

Hawaii’s prostitution law includes an exemption for “any member of a police department, a sheriff, or a law enforcement officer acting in the course and scope of duties.” …That’s right: Cops insisted that they must be free not just to receive blowjobs and handjobs from prostitutes but also to engage in vaginal and anal intercourse with them. Evidently the police also need permission to engage in “flagellation or torture by or upon a person as an act of sexual stimulation or gratification” (Hawaii’s definition of “sadomasochistic abuse”). Just in case. Since an entire chamber of the state legislature agreed to this request, the cops must have had a pretty persuasive argument.

Hmmm…makes me wonder if the legislators also added an exemption for themselves. Based on the state’s tax rates, we already know they screw taxpayers for money, so it’s not much of a leap to suspect they’re doing the same thing on a one-on-one basis.

Though, as shown in this cartoon, they’re not used to spending their own money.

All kidding aside, Jacob makes the very sensible point that the real problem is that politicians have enacted laws against a victimless crime.

…the double standard demanded by police highlights the utter absurdity of prostitution laws. Police do not commit murder to catch killers or knock over banks to catch robbers. Yet here they are insisting that they need the leeway to have sex with prostitutes in order to stop people from having sex with prostitutes. Even if cops never take advantage of that freedom, they routinely commit the crime of agreeing to pay for sex, except that in their case it is not treated as a crime. That exemption is considered acceptable only because exchanging money for sex, unlike murder and robbery, does not violate anyone’s rights. But if so, why not broaden the exemption to cover everyone?

I agree. I find the whole business of prostitution very distasteful, just as I feel nothing but disdain for illegal drugs. But prohibition just makes matters worse.

P.S. Since this post looks at both parking meters and prostitution, you’ll be amused by the way the Germans combined those two topics.

P.P.S. I periodically share polling data that strikes me as significant. Most recently, for instance, I noted that crazy left wingers openly admitted they want higher tax rates even if the government doesn’t raise any revenue. That was a depressing result, but I was encouraged to see that a vast majority of Americans view big government as a threat to the nation’s future.

Here are a couple of new polls that caught my attention.

1. I’m rather worried that a new Rasmussen poll found that “for the first time, fewer than half of voters believe tax cuts help the economy.” For what it’s worth, I suspect this is because politicians often gravitate to “tax cuts” that fail to reduce the burden on productive activity. Instead, they make the code more complex by expanding credits, deductions, exemptions, preferences, and exclusions.

If they started pushing for lower marginal tax rates or fundamental tax reform, the polling numbers would probably be better.

2. Let’s now cross the ocean and look at some remarkable Gallup data on the role of government in thwarting small businesses.

Gallup Europe Entrepreneurship

I already knew Greece had stunningly absurd barriers to entrepreneurship (click here for an unbelievable example), so one can only imagine the types of nonsense imposed by Italy’s feckless government.

3. Let’s close with some very good news. It seems that young people are beginning to realize that Ronald Reagan was right (see second video) when he said government is the problem rather than the solution.

Check out this excerpt from a report by National Journal.

Millennials who may have voted with youthful exuberance in 2008 seem to have grown fatigued with the government’s inability to get things done. In 2009, 42 percent of millennials said government programs are usually inefficient and wasteful, according to Pew data. By 2012, that number had increased to 51 percent. And young people say they’re losing trust in the government to Do the Right Thing. In 2009, 44 percent of millennials said they trust the government to do what’s right all or most of the time. By 2013, that dropped to 29 percent.

Makes me think maybe these youngsters finally figured out that programs like Social Security are empty Ponzi schemes.

By the way, here are the best poll numbers I’ve ever seen.

Read Full Post »

There’s an old joke that a quandary exists when your mother-in-law drives off a cliff in your new Porsche. Are you more happy about losing her or more unhappy about losing your sports car?

I’m not clever enough to come up with humorous quandaries, but I have shared policy quandaries.

I’ve asked, for instance, whether libertarians might have second thoughts about an end to drug prohibition if the result was bigger government.

And I speculated whether leftists or social conservatives would be more upset about a gay man legally adopting his lover in order to minimize Pennsylvania’s death tax.

And if you like this kind of thing, I have more than one dozen additional examples of these types of quandaries.

I have something else to add to the list, and it’s near and dear to my heart because I like to think that I’m among the biggest critics of both Obamacare and bureaucracy.

But what happens if there’s an issue pitting Obamacare and bureaucrats against each other? Would I be able to pick sides?

This isn’t theoretical speculation. Check out these excerpts from a recent report in the New York Times.

Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say. …Even after the administration said this month that it would ease coverage requirements for larger employers, public employers generally said they were keeping the restrictions on work hours because their obligation to provide health insurance, starting in 2015, would be based on hours worked by employees this year. Among those whose hours have been restricted in recent months are police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers and part-time professors.

To be honest, I don’t know how to react to this.

Am I glad that we have more evidence that Obamacare is hurting people and reducing labor supply?

That’s obviously the case, and it’s an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.

For months, Obama administration officials have played down reports that employers were limiting workers’ hours. But in a report this month, the Congressional Budget Office said the Affordable Care Act could lead to a reduction in the number of hours worked, relative to what would otherwise occur. Jason Furman, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, reaffirmed the White House view that the law was “good for wages and incomes and for the economy over all.” …The Obama administration says “there is absolutely no evidence” of any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.

One suspects, by the way, that the Obama White House must have a very strange definition of “job loss.”

They’ll only confess culpability, one imagines, if Obama personally delivers the pink slip or HHS Secretary Sebilius personally orders the loss of hours.

But let’s get back to our main point. I was wondering whether I should be happy to have this additional evidence against Obamacare.

But perhaps I should be glad instead that local governments are squeezing the hours and benefits of the bureaucracy, particularly since the alternative would be higher taxes.

Check out these passages from the NYT’s story. Isn’t it wonderful to read about sulking bureaucrats?

William J. Lipkin, an adjunct professor of American history and political science at Union County College in Cranford, N.J., said: “The Affordable Care Act, rather than making health care affordable for adjunct faculty members, is making it more unaffordable. Colleges are not giving us access to health care, and our hours are being cut, which means our income is being cut. We are losing on both ends.” The American Federation of Teachers lists on its website three dozen public colleges and universities in 15 states that it says have restricted the work assignments of adjunct or part-time faculty members to avoid the cost of providing health insurance.

Some people love the smell of napalm in the morning. Not me. I prefer the whining of angry and resentful bureaucrats. Maybe (as I’ve suggested before) Obamacare isn’t all bad after all.

But 98 percent bad is still bad. The law is a trainwreck and needs to be repealed.

P.S. On another topic, is anyone surprised that the IRS doesn’t like obeying the laws it enforces against the rest of us.

Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration found that the expenses for nine IRS executives — out of 31 whose travel was examined — were wrongly deemed to be nontaxable, on average reimbursements of $51,420. Those executives traveled an average of 140.5 days combined in fiscal 2011 and 2012, the two years examined by the inspector general. The IRS had at least 350 executives in each of those years, meaning the inspector general report covers just a fraction of the agency’s top officials.

Maybe we should save the IRS bureaucrats from potential legal trouble by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with a simple and fair flat tax.

Read Full Post »

Do libertarians have a sense of humor?

That’s a relevant question because many people think of us as unhappy curmudgeons, or perhaps as dorky Randians.

While I think those stereotypes are unfair, I also confess that I can only think of a few examples of explicitly pro-libertarian humor.

Libertarian Jesus scolding modern statists.

This poster about confused statists.

The libertarian version of a sex fantasy.

Since I could only find three examples, does this mean libertarians are hopelessly dour and lacking in humor?

I think the answer is “no” and I think there are two reasons to justify that response. First, libertarians are always making fun of oafish and moronic government. I like to think, for instance, that my UK-vs-US government stupidity contest contains some amusing satire.

Skeptics may respond that you can mock big government without being a libertarian, and that’s a fair point.

But this gives me an opportunity to list the second reason why it’s wrong to accuse libertarians of lacking a sense of humor. Simply stated, we have the ability to appreciate anti-libertarian humor. This not only shows that we have funny bones, but it also demonstrates that we have considerable confidence about the strength of our ideas.

So with that build-up, here’s an example of anti-libertarian humor I received from a fellow traveler in Illinois.

Libertarian Fire Dept

I think you’ll agree that this can be added to our collection of anti-libertarian humor.

P.S. Since I am a dorky libertarian, I can’t resist responding to the above cartoon by noting that we actually don’t need government fire departments. The folks at the Reason Foundation have been working on this issue for decades and have a study explaining the benefits of private fire departments.

But there’s a lot more evidence. Here’s what one expert wrote in 2012 for Cato Unbound.

…my town contracts out its entire fire department to the company Rural/Metro, a pioneer in privatized fire services. Their trucks are shiny, red, and full of water, just like a “traditional” fire department’s. Their firemen train just like their municipal counterparts do in neighboring jurisdictions. They respond to fire and EMS calls just like the government-run systems do. The main differences I’ve discerned are that: (1) their logo—which otherwise looks much like other fire department logos—notes the name of the company underneath the name of the town, and (2) workers are covered under a private sector 401(k) plan, so our town is not on the hook for a massive future pension payout. Neither of these differences is relevant from a service delivery standpoint.

And an article in Capitalism Magazine the same year pointed out that privatized fire protection exists in hundreds of communities.

…nearly half of Denmark’s municipalities contract with Group 4 Falck to provide firefighting and ambulance services. In America, more than 450 communities contract with Rural/Metro Corporation for fire protection service, EMS, or both. Unlike government fire services, which focus on fire response, Rural/Metro focuses on fire prevention. A former mayor of Scottsdale, Arizona, which has used Rural/Metro for more than two decades said, “Scottsdale citizens are offered a much better balance between response and prevention than is available in most communities.”

Why are so many communities looking at private options?

Most likely, it’s because unions have conspired with government officials to push labor costs to absurd levels, as humorously depicted is this somewhat off-color video.

P.P.S. Returning to the topic of humor, I have a serious request. Can anybody provide examples of self-deprecating humor by leftists?

I don’t think statists have much self-confidence in their ideas, so they probably don’t have much ability to poke at themselves, but I imagine there must be some examples.

Read Full Post »

Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird, it’s a plane…no it’s Super Bureaucrat!

Actually, look to New Jersey, because you’re going to see a taxpayer ripoff that will get your blood boiling. Depending on your perspective, this may be worse that the toll collector on the New Jersey Turnpike who pocketed more than $300,000 in a single year.

Because today’s super bureaucrat isn’t getting overpaid for one job. He’s getting overpaid for six jobs!

Here are some excerpts from a local news report in New Jersey (h/t: Reason).

Patrick DeBlasio was hired Wednesday as Highlands’ chief financial officer — his sixth concurrent public job and ranking him among the highest-paid public employees in New Jersey. Highlands will pay DeBlasio a $40,000 annual salary on a part-time basis… DeBlasio will not have to work a minimum number of hours, said Administrator Tim Hill, or be required to go into the office.

Maybe one day I can get one of these $40,000 no-show jobs that don’t require any work. But I don’t know if I could juggle several of them, and this is what makes DeBlasio special.

DeBlasio has a full-time job as Carteret’s CFO and part-time gigs in Keansburg, North Plainfield and the Carteret School District, the report said. He is also currently Highland’s tax collector.

It’s rather convenient that he also serves as a tax collector since it takes a lot of money to finance all his government salaries.

In 2012, DeBlasio’s annual compensation totaled $244,606, more than Gov. Chris Christie or state Treasurer Andrew P. Sidamon-Eristoff, who earn $175,000 and $141,000, respectively.

As the old saying goes, nice work if you can get it.

Maybe it’s time to start a Bureaucrat Hall of Fame, sort of like our Moocher Hall of Fame. In addition to Mr. DeBlasio (and the toll collector mentioned above), charter members could include the following.

When you read these stories, it’s easy to understand why so many states are in fiscal trouble.

And it also makes sense that state and local bureaucrats are far less likely to quit their jobs than folks in the productive sector of the economy. After all, how many people leave positions when they’re being overpaid?

But don’t forget that federal bureaucrats enjoy an even bigger pay advantage over private sector workers. Indeed, my Cato colleague Chris Edwards reports that they get twice as much average compensation as the serfs in the productive sector of the economy who pay their bills.

This video has the unhappy details.

P.S. Super Bureaucrat joins a list of other “super heroes,” including Government Man, and also two caped crusaders inspired by President Obama. Thanks to Michael Ramirez, we have “Stupor Man.” And there’s also Super-President-Constitutional-Law-Professor.

P.P.S. Is there some hidden strand of DNA that causes people named de Blasio to be burdens to taxpayers?

P.P.P.S. Shifting gears, remember our story about ten days ago featuring the little kid who was suspended from school for firing an imaginary bow and arrow? Well, we have another example showing that government schools could be considered a form of child abuse.

A 5-year-old boy was reportedly suspended from school after making a gun gesture with his hand on the playground. His father, David Hendrix, was furious when he found out his son was issued a suspension for the gesture. “He was playing army on the playground,” Hendrix told WBTV.

Yet another argument for school choice.

Read Full Post »

It’s no secret that I have very little faith in the competence and good will of government.

I focus primarily on the fecklessness of Washington, but I also can’t resist highlighting malfeasance and stupidity by local governments, state governments, and foreign governments.

Indeed, I’ve even had to create special categories to keep track of some of the more amazing episodes of bureaucratic blundering. Here are just a few that will leave you shaking your head in disbelief.

A bizarre collection of examples showing anti-gun political correctness in schools.

A local government stupidity contest.

A bunch of supposed victories in the Drug War.

A comparison of government stupidity in the United States and United Kingdom.

A list of new “rights” concocted by governments.

A pick-the-dumbest-regulation poll.

And even a strange collection of stories about anti-Bambi persecution by bureaucrats.

Today, we’re going to add to this collection. But I’m not sure how to categorize this story. Is is a great moment in local law enforcement, like when cops bust little girls with lemonade stands, or they arrest young men for the horrible crime of saving people from drowning?

Or is it an example of the regulatory state run amok, like when the FDA conducted a raid to stop consenting adults from buying and selling unpasteurized milk,  or when the Greek bureaucracy required submission of stool samples in order to set up an online company.

You’ll understand why it’s hard to decide after reading this story. The issue is (gasp!) unregulated topless hair cutting. Here’s some of what was reported by the New York Times.

A woman who allegedly offered topless hairstyling services in northern Colorado faces criminal charges. But police say the problem isn’t cutting hair without a top. …46-year old Suzette Hall was arrested Wednesday night on suspicion of practicing cosmetology without a license.

I don’t know about you, but I’m going to sleep better tonight knowing that the dangerous scourge of unlicensed haircutting in Colorado has been stifled.

Aren’t we lucky that the government is protecting us from such dangers!

Interestingly, the Rebel Barber (who is not the same person as the Rebel Economist) actually tried to comply with the government’s regulatory demands. But there was no license for her particular form of business.

Hall’s ex-husband told police she set up shop in Loveland and offered services as “Rebel Barber.” He told police she applied for “a nude license for hairstylists,” but no such license exists.

Perhaps we can get some federal legislation requiring all states to have new bureaucracies for the purposes of licensing and regulating nude hairstylists?

Actually, I shouldn’t even make that kind of joke. Some politician might take the suggestion seriously.

Better to leave such matters in the hands of local governments. That way, the potential damage is limited by borders.

Speaking of which, the politicians of Snohomish County in Washington have created special licensing rules for adult coffees shops.

Though that’s amateur hour compared to the Germans, who have figured out how to use parking meters to tax prostitutes.

In other words, governments don’t mind sex so long as they can figure out how to regulate it or tax it.

P.S. The all-time record for government incompetence was set by Fall River, Massachusetts in 2011.

P.P.S. As you might imagine, Dave Barry is very funny when he decides to mock government.

Read Full Post »

We know that countries suffer when taxes get too high, in part because investors, entrepreneurs, and other successful taxpayers escape to jurisdiction with less oppressive fiscal regimes. France is a glaring example. On steroids.

We know that states also suffer when the tax burden becomes to onerous, leading to an exodus of jobs and investment.Jerry Brown Promised Land California and Illinois are case studies of this self-destructive practice.

But it’s especially foolish for state governments to over-tax because it’s relatively easy to move from one state to another. Escaping a high-tax nation, by contrast, is a much costlier step and some governments impose quasi-totalitarian barriers to emigration.

Well, if states are foolish for imposing excessive taxation, then local governments that do the same thing are downright suicidal. It hardly requires any effort to move to another neighborhood on the other side of a city’s borders.

That’s why Detroit was doomed to failure. It’s why California cities are going bankrupt. And it explains why I’m now very bearish about New York City.

That’s because the voters of the Big Apple just voted for a Mayor who thinks class-warfare tax policy is the right approach.

That’s not going to end well. Here’s some of what I wrote for City AM, a newspaper that serves the London financial community.

The new mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has a tax-and-spend agenda reminiscent of the profligacy that led Greece to fiscal ruin. …It doesn’t take mass emigration to destabilise a local government’s finances, particularly when a city is very dependent on a limited number of high-income taxpayers. That is why de Blasio’s fiscal agenda is so risky. He wants to raise the New York City income tax (which comes on top of the 39.6 per cent federal income tax and the 8.8 per cent state income tax) from 3.876 per cent to 4.41 percent for taxpayers with an annual income over $500,000.

The Wall Street Crowd, however, doesn’t need to call the moving vans right away.

But there is some good news: New York City does not have full control of its fiscal affairs. Any changes in the local income tax or local sales tax have to be approved by the state. Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo reportedly has national ambitions, and has expressed scepticism about de Blasio’s planned tax hike. Further, Republicans control the state senate and presumably will not be overly sympathetic to any fiscal plan that pillages Wall Street. So folks in places that compete with New York City – such as London, Tokyo, and Hong Kong – shouldn’t put champagne on ice quite yet. Mayor-elect de Blasio wants to help your cities, but it’s uncertain at this stage whether he will succeed.

If you put a gun to my head, I suspect de Blasio will get some sort of tax hike, but probably not what he wants.

So what will that mean? It’s hard to answer that question without also know what will happen on the spending side of the budget. If he pays off his union supporters by augmenting the already excessive pay and benefits of city workers, then New York City will be on the fast track to fiscal trouble.

But if he “merely” gets a tax hike, then the City’s collapse will take longer. As I noted earlier this year, there are many people who are willing to swallow big tax bills to live in particular locations.

…it’s clear that some people are willing to pay more because they like the non-political features of NYC and the Golden State. For those who like museums, fancy dining, and Broadway shows, there’s no easy substitute for New York City. And for people who like the ocean and a Mediterranean climate, it’s hard to compete with California.

But there are limits. Each time the fiscal burden increases, a few more rich people may decide to leave. And since New York City is heavily dependent on upper-income taxpayers (the government already gets 43 percent of its income tax revenue from this sliver of the population), it doesn’t take much fiscal emigration to destabilize the City’s budget.

Perhaps the most important lesson, though, is that higher taxes on the rich are simply the appetizer course. It’s just a matter of time before politicians go after the rest of us – for the simple reason that you can’t finance a welfare state without screwing the middle class.

P.S. If you want more class-warfare cartoons, click here, here, here, and here.

Read Full Post »

I posted a video back in 2010 that used biting humor to complain about overpaid firefighters.

That video stirred a hornet’s nest, generating some spirited debate in the comments section. But there was no resolution, in part because you can’t make sweeping judgements when firefighter pay is determined locally.

Some firefighters may be underpaid and some almost certainly are overpaid.

And you can find a jaw-dropping example of the latter category in southern California.

Andrew Biggs at the American Enterprise Institute looks into a controversy about compensation levels for firefighters in Orange County and says the critics are wrong – but also right – about excessive pay and benefits for the firefighting bureaucracy.

UnionWatch.org reports that the average firefighter in Orange County, California pulls in total pay and benefits of $234,000 per year, making them among the best-paid public employees – and, for that matter, among the best-paid of any kind of employees – in the country. But is this true? No. But yes. UnionWatch relies on compensation data provided by Orange County itself, which appears to buttress their claims. Average salaries for firefighters top $91,000, on top of which they typically receive another $65,000 in overtime and other supplementary pay. Firefighters then receive an employer pension employer contribution of around $61,000 and health insurance benefits of about $15,000, for a total of over $234,000.

Here’s why UnionWatch.org is incorrect.

…why is this not right? Because in Orange County and most other cities and states, much of the employer’s pension contribution is to pay off unfunded liabilities from prior years, which is different from pension benefits earned by employees in the current year. Only the latter is truly compensation. The “normal cost” of Orange County Fire pension benefits accruing this year is about 23.49 percent of salaries, or around $37,685. So, average annual compensation would be around $23,000 less, so make that total compensation of about $211,000. Still not shabby, but less than the headline.

But it seems that the group also is right. Indeed, they understated the cost of employing a firefighter.

But here’s the bad news: total compensation is actually a lot higher than $211,000, and even higher than UnionWatch’s $234,000 figure. The reason is that Orange County calculates its pension contribution based on the assumption the plan’s investments will 7.75% investment returns every year. …If we assume a 4% interest rate – something above the riskless Treasury yield, but lower than the pensions’ own risky investment return – the normal cost of Orange County Fire pensions rises a lot – to about 75 percent of salaries. (…the Congressional Budget Office applied the same risk-adjustment in valuing pensions for federal government employees.) In other words, in an average year an Orange County firefighter accrues future pension benefits worth over $118,000. So total annual compensation for an average Orange County firefighter is somewhere in the neighborhood of $290,000 per year.

That’s a nice pile of cash. Not as good as the city manager in one California town who raked in more than $787,000 per year, but definitely not shabby.

But the real issue is whether $290,000 is too much or too little. Being a firefighter is a risky profession, after all, and higher compensation is an efficient way of compensating for danger. And I assume there are fitness requirements that restrict the pool of eligible applicants.

Unfortunately, the article doesn’t give us the information needed to specifically assess whether Orange County firefighters are overpaid.

For what it’s worth, though, I think the answer is yes. We have data from the Department of Labor showing that state and local government bureaucrats are far less likely to voluntarily leave their jobs compared to workers in the private sector.

That’s a very strong indication that they’re receiving above-market wages. And since firefighters are paid a lot more than the average state or local bureaucrat, we can make some educated assumptions about their relative compensation.

To put this issue in context, here’s a video I narrated from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity on the issue of bureaucratic compensation.

If I had to simplify this video into a couple of short messages, one of them would be that a lot of bureaucrats are grossly overpaid for the simple reason that their jobs shouldn’t exist. I’m sure there are some very nice and wonderfully conscientious people working at places such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but their jobs should be phased out as those departments are eliminated.

The other message is that we should use market indicators to determine compensation for government jobs that would still exist. Whether we’re talking about military pay at the federal level or compensation for cops at the local level, it makes sense to pay enough to get the right people but not so much that taxpayers are getting the short end of the stick.

In Orange County, California, taxpayers are left with a twig.

P.S. I already mentioned the fat-cat city manager from Bell, California. Here are some other bureaucrats who are living on Easy Street courtesy of taxpayers.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: