Because they're lying, that's why

by folkbum

You might be wondering why I haven't written much about the health care debate lately. In part, things have been crazy round these parts, and I haven't written much at all lately. In part, Keith has been doing a fine job.

Mostly, though, it's because the "other side" in this debate refuses to be honest about it. You see it in the comment threads here; I have also tried engaging them in comment threads elsewhere. They lie, and when you explain to them exactly how they're lying, they refuse to acknowledge it and make up something else.

Now, I don't know the origin of all of the crap they're throwing out there. One thing I do know, though, is that all these people who claim to have "read the bill" (HR3200, available in html here and downloadable as a ginormous pdf from lots of places) either haven't or don't have a clue what they're reading.

A friend forwarded an email from Americans for Prosperity this morning, for example, that reads in part,

You see, we had just detailed the “end of life” mandatory counseling provision of the Obama/Pelosi health care takeover for the crowd. Dr. Larry Hunter had just explained that on page 425 and 426 the House bill states that if you are a Medicare recipient you will receive counseling to learn about “end of life” options, including hospice and palliative care.

On this blog, it's called "Obamacare Euthanasia." Berry Laker, in a long list of misreadings of the bill found via Dad29, writes, "Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends." This blog, from which I've been banned for pointing out previous blatant lies, says, "End of life plan for each American citizen ordered by the government."

Scary-sounding stuff, to be sure, but flat-out lies. The section in question from HR3200 begins with the words, ”Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended …” If you look at the law to be amended, you can see that it's the "Definitions of Services, Institutions, Etc." part of the law that describes services that are reimbursable under Medicare. The provision in HR3200 does not make such sessions mandatory and does not force anyone to do anything or file their living will with the federal government. It does not send a G-Man to your door to tell you how and when you're going to die. Instead, the provision simply says that the doctor can get paid for the time he or she spends talking to you about your living will--something that doesn't happen now. It was originally introduced by a Republican Senator and endorsed by the AARP; the AARP is not so dumb as to endorse a provision that kills off their dues-paying members, are they? No matter how patiently I explain this, the other side refuses to acknowledge reality.

The other side reports with glee every time something bad happens in England (McIlheran does it here, for example), because they deliberately choose to conflate the British socialized National Health Service (where health care workers are government employees) with the reforms being proposed by Congress and the White House, none of which are socialized medicine, "government-run health care," or even single-payer. They'll tell you that HR3200 demands rationing of care. Berry Laker: "YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED! [. . .] THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get." He also prints that in red text, because all-caps is apparently not enough emphasis. But the parts of the bill he points to (sections 122 and 123) say nothing of the kind. Section 122 is the Essential Benefits Package Defined section, which sets minimum standards for health insurance coverage, not maximums that lead to rationing. Section 123 establishes an advisory committee whose job it is to periodically review those minimums and decide if they're sufficient.

As part of that, they'll lie to you and tell you that HR3200 outlaws private insurance. Freedom Eden displays that in her sidebar: "Obamacare: You Will Lose Your Current Insurance. Period. End of Story. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." Community columnist Kathy Banaszak repeats the lie in the JS this morning. This blogger claims, "Of course it outlaws private insurance. It’s right there in the bill. [. . .] I read the goddamn bill, unlike John Conyers." If he had read the bill, of course, he would have noticed Title II (pages 72-143, so not like it's buried) of the bill, "Health Insurance Exchange and Related Provisions," which establishes a nation-wide network of private insurers--something the right has been clamoring for. Yes, there is a "public option" defined in Title II, but it is in addition to, not in place of, private insurance.

The "page 16" lie has its origins in a lying editorial from Investors Business Daily, which misreads the definition of a "grandfathered health plan"--a plan that exists now but cannot enroll new members after the bill takes effect--and reads that as the end of private insurance altogether. In fact, those "grandfathered" plans are defined (p. 72-73) as "acceptable coverage," meaning they won't be changed or taken away by the bill. And insurance companies and businesses are free to--are, in fact, encouraged to--offer private health care plans (meeting new minimums) and enroll people after the bill takes effect.

A similar lie shows up in Berry Laker's list: "Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people!" he screams, also in red. But, again, that's about grandfathered plans.

There's more, of course. There's the one about how the government will have real-time access to your financial records. The reality is that bill requires, as part of modernizing the system through electronic records, a real-time "determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service." In other words, not a full picture of your portfolio, but rather whether or not you owe a co-pay.

There's the one about the "national ID card," because the bill says you should have an insurance card. (I already have one! It's the end of the world!)

There's the one about "government will tell you [doctors] where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live" (Berry Laker, again), based on the section that slightly amends an already existing law (see here, scroll down to "(h) Payments for Direct Graduate Medical Education Costs").

There's the one about about the federal government setting pay for all doctors, based on the fact that doctors who voluntarily agree to be a part of the public option plan will be reimbursed at Medicare rates.

There's the one (seen an a LTE this morning) about how the plan doesn't apply to Congress, even though Congresspeople get their benefits through their employers, and, like all other employer-provided insurance in the bill, that's left alone.

There's the one about the feds mandating that everyone get vaccinations, based on the fact that the bill adds a "preventive services" section to another set of definitions in the Social Security Act.

I mean, I could go on for days just on Berry Laker's list alone. It's painful to see so many deliberate falsehoods and misreadings of the bill's language all in one place. (He conveniently offers page numbers, so feel free to download the bill and debunk away over there.)

One last one, though, and it's one we've seen in comments here and elsewhere. (Added: McIlheran used this lie in his lede Friday, citing bogus figures from an insurance-industry funded group.) The bill, HR3200, includes an employer mandate, meaning that all employers must either provide insurance to their workers or must pay a fine of 8% of payroll, which provides subsidies for people who cannot afford to buy into the insurance market (private plan or public option) on their own. The theory goes that since 8% of payroll is far less than what many employers are paying for insurance now, business will dump their employees and take the hit.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I mean, I can't call it a lie, because, you know, there's no way to say that it won't happen. But it's an utterly illogical argument.

What's the penalty right now for a business dropping insurance coverage? If you said nothing, you win a prize. Right now, your boss could cancel your health insurance and pay nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero. No "fine" at all. In fact, if you quit in protest, there is probably going to be a long line of people ready to take your place (and maybe work for less), unemployment being what it is, so there is no incentive at all for the boss to try to keep you happy.

Yes, many businesses are going ahead and dropping coverage. But that's still the minority. The vast majority of people still get their insurance at work. So how on earth does it make sense to say that companies that are not dropping coverage now when rates are rising and there's no penalty are going to do it in a heartbeat after the bill passes, adds a penalty (and, we hope, holds down rates)? Past behavior is always a good predictor of future behavior, and past behavior suggests that businesses generally don't want to stop offering insurance, even when there is no penalty for doing so.

To be clear: Not every conservative Cheddarspherean is engaging in the lies this way. A lot of them haven't touched health care reform at all, or if they have, they're leaving it up to Paul Ryan. (Ryan has his own problems, of course.) But I wish some of the respectable members of the Right Cheddarsphere would call out some of their own for spreading this crap.

Finally, it's obvious why they're lying: The reality of the health care proposals is not very scary. In fact, there's broad bipartisan support for the bulk of the reforms. However, this is not about getting good reform done. Some of the Republicans have let slip the truth: This is about getting Obama. This is what they want to be his Waterloo. If Republicans can stop this reform--the fiscal and physical health of the nation be damned--then Obama will be weak and broken and they can dance on the grave of progressives' hope. Many of the blogs I linked to about these lies, for example, are presently reveling in a send-up poster of Obama made-up like Heath Ledger's Joker. This is intensely personal for them! So rather than be honest about what's going in the actual language of the bill, they spread these lies and scary stories.

That's why I haven't been writing about health care. How do you debate someone who willfully misrepresents the proposals, refuses to accept facts as facts, and engages in Bizarro-world thinking? You can't. It's all I can do not to rip my remaining hair out in frustration.

Palin worship and the rare reverse-Godwin

by folkbum

Shorter Dad29: When Sarah Palin lied about the "bridge to nowhere," it was just like lying to the Nazis about hiding Jews in your house.

The dumbest comment on the McFly affair to date

by folkbum

And I'm proud to say it was made right here in the comments section of this very blog!

Regular (and blogger in his own right) Dad29 came by last night to say, "Frankly the biggest story is 'who sent the letters/emails?'--unanswered by Bice." (Original Bice story here, for the one or two of you who haven't read it yet.)

This is dumb for two reasons: One, it suggests that somehow evidence of a transgression (and a Class E felony!) is somehow more important than the transgression itself.

Two, and this is the key, the statement perfectly encapsulates everything that went wrong with the treatment of (alleged) lawbreaking by the Bush administration in the last decade. Wiretaps being done without a warrant in violation of the law? Who told you that? CIA black sites scattered across Eastern Europe? Let's get that reporter's notes! There are photographs out there showing detainee abuse? Stop their release!

Well, okay, the last one also applies to the current administration.

But this is, perhaps, the most frustrating thing for me in considering the way in which government, at many levels, has been running lately, and the way in which people who ought to be (for want of a better term) watchdogging it are falling down on the job. So much attention is paid to the evidence or consequences of the evidence of wrongdoing that no one ever gets around to prosecuting the criminals.

This is not, in any way, to say that McFly should be prosecuted. It's just that this dodge--who leaked the evidence?--is so irritating to me that I have to comment on the larger pattern, using this minor matter as the catalyst.

---
Updated to add: Jessica McBride has made me popular again (according to SiteMeter's graphy thingy):

Start the holiday season, Dad29 style!

by folkbum

Laugh it up with a good old-fashioned hooker joke (though it's the lawyer getting screwed) and guffaw your way through a genocide one-liner! Sure to be a crowd-pleaser when the fam gathers for turkey and trimmings tomorrow!

Another page in the book of REAL sexism ...

by folkbum

... as opposed to the faux sexism that we who oppose the McCain-Palin ticket are occasionally accused of--sometimes at the hands on the very keyboard that typed this abomination:

Kathleen Parker (of NRO)--notoriously the BillyBoyKristol rag... [quoting Parker's assertion that Sarah Palin is out of her league] And after assorted moans, groans, whines, and perma-PMS-driven b-yotching, Kathleen unloads upon us her Sage Advice ... [quoting Parker's suggestion that Palin drop off the ticket] Ms. Parker, I have a suggestion for you. Find Mr. Parker and let him have his way with you just once this year.

I realize this is all a part of the continuing pattern, but now, clearly, we see it must be a pathological hatred of women.

We interrupt the Sarah Palin bashing ...

by folkbum

... to remind you what actual sexism looks like. (Yes, it's the same guy.)

Again, a complete and utter lack of words

by folkbum

When last Dad29 rendered me speechless, he was busy blaming women soldiers for being sexually assaulted. Nowhere to go but up, right? Wrong:

We all know that the coathanger is THE symbol of "bad-old-days" abortions. It is iconic--desperate women had to do something--anything--to become un-pregnant.

But the coathanger bespeaks a syndrome which may not be directly abortion-related. [. . .] It's a grown-up version of the 2-year-old's temper tantrum

I elided material Dad29 quotes--if you read it, it may well turn your stomach, too--that suggests not simply that women who self-induced abortions pre-Roe were just certifiable rather than in desperate straits to end their pregnancy. No, the quoted material also suggests that self-induced abortions didn't really happen that often anyway.

This is, simply, a lie. See, for example, this paper (.pdf) from the Guttmacher institute:

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher. [. . .]

Even in the early 1970s, when abortion was legal in some states, a legal abortion was simply out of reach for many. Minority women suffered the most: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died.

Even today in countries that ban abortion, women are self-inducing abortions. The coat hanger may not be the implement of choice (these days it sounds like ingesting herbs is it), but the history (and present) of self-induced abortion is real and dangerous.

I am reminded of this post I read just last week about exactly this issue, which links to an op-ed in the New York Times:

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. [. . .]

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

Well, I guess there were words, after all. And there are more I will not say out loud, since this is a family blog.

Morning update: See additional comments from Zach, capper, and Michael.

Pop Quiz

by folkbum

Read the following paragraph:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone--a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. ... Eating on the street--even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat--displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. ... Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. ... This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.

That paragraph appears in (a) an angry European's list of things he hates about Americans; (b) a particularly testy early edition of Emily Post; or (c) a report prepared and released at taxpayer expense by the federal government's President's Council on Bioethics written by the founder of said Council himself.

Answer here. It's a little long, but it explains a whole lot of this, I think.

There remain no words

by folkbum

Revised (original) shorter Dad29: Why do women in the military get raped? Because the Clenis violated Natural Law.

Actually, I lied; there are words: Go read Emily Mills's response.

There are no words

by folkbum

Shorter Dad29: Why do women in the military get raped? Because they're there.

Two Related Updates on My Thompson Post

One, Glenn Greenwald's been tracking the way conservatives are now desperately backpedalling over Bush, perhaps to let the candidates like Thompson run to Bush's right:

This fraud is as transparent as it is dishonest, yet there are signs that the media is nonetheless beginning to adopt this theme that there is some sort of epic and long-standing "Bush-conservative schism." But very little effort is required to see what a fraud that storyline is.

One of the few propositions on which Bush supporters and critics agree is that George Bush does not change and has not changed at all over the last six years. He is exactly the same.

And none of the supposed grounds for conservative discontent -- especially Bush's immigration position -- is even remotely new. Bush's immigration views have been well-known since before he was first elected in 2000, yet conservatives have devoted to him virtually cult-like loyalty and support. Just logically speaking, Bush's immigration views cannot be the cause of the flamboyant conservative "rebellion" against Bush since those views long co-existed with intense conservative devotion to Bush.

There is really only one thing that has changed about George W. Bush from the 2002-2004 era when conservatives hailed him as the Great Conservative Leader, and now. Whereas Bush was a wildly popular leader then, which made conservatives eager to claim him as their Standard-Bearer, he is now one of the most despised presidents in U.S. history, and conservatives are thus desperate to disassociate themselves from the President for whom they are solely responsible. It is painfully obvious there is nothing noble, substantive or principled driving this right-wing outburst; it is a pure act of self-preservation.

An excerpt does not do it justice. The facts in this case are merciless. Please read the whole thing.

Two, Dad29 kicked off the comments thread to that Fred Thompson post with this:

The main reason is that Thompson, just like Obama, sees the political situation as one which is deteriorating rapidly into a "tit/tat" partisan steaming pile of crap.

I pulled it out because I think it--and (humbly speaking) my response--deserves a little bit more light.

Dad29 seems to think Thompson is above partisanship. I suppose there are two possible readings of that sentence. The first is that Fred is someone who engages his opponents and finds common ground to move the country forward. This does not describe Fred Thompson: As I noted in response, Fred's talking the fringe talk (despite his history) on immigration, the Iraq war, health care, gay rights, and more. He doesn't seem inclined to move to the center on any of them.

A second reading, which, for all I know, is what Dad29 meant, is that Fred doesn't deign to engage the debate, talk to anyone who disagrees with him, bother with compromise. After all, Thompson's most significant campaign move to date is making a YouTube video where he tells Michael Moore to go check into an insane asylum unstead of engaging the filmmaker over the challenges of the US health care system.

And the conservatives ate that up. In part, I bet, because the rightroots hate Michael Moore. And in part because they love that mine-is-bigger-than-yours-ism (for Fred, a cigar is not just a cigar), that I-can't-hear-you-ism, that stay-the-course-in-the-face-of-disaster-ism.

That's why it's ironic that the conservative chattering classes are turning on Bush and turned on by Thompson: If the latter paraphrase of Dad29's statement is the more accurate one, Fred Thompson is George W. Bush.

And that, my friends and neighbors, is a scary, scary prospect.

McIlheran Watch: Waiting for denunciation

by folkbum

I would also accept it from Dad29 or Rick Esenberg, or any one of the dozens of other Right Cheddarsphereans who had their undies bunched about two bloggers hired by the John Edwards for President Campaign. What will they say about a campaign chairman?

In 1997, shortly after I finished grad school, I started working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. My very first project, literally in my first week, dealt with a Republican member of South Carolina’s Board of Education, who wanted to impose Christianity on public school students. When one of his colleagues on the board alluded to concerns about religious minorities in the state, this board member said, on tape, “Screw the Buddhists and kill the Muslims. And put that in the minutes.”

The guy’s name was Henry Jordan. I got to work trying to force his resignation, but to no avail. I helped drum up some media interest, but the GOP establishment in South Carolina stood by Jordan, the response from local voters was tepid, and he kept his job looking out for the educational needs of children.

This week, my old friend Jordan got a new political gig.

Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter on Thursday named … former state Rep. Tom Marchant and Dr. Henry Jordan campaign co-chairmen.

I suppose you could say that John Edwards has about a billion percent better chance of winning the Democratic nomination than Duncan Hunter does of winning the Republican nomination, and therefore Hunter doesn't merit the same close examination of his staff. I suppose you could also say that McIlheran, Esenberg, and 29 are Catholic and, therefore, don't pay attention to people who hate other religions. I suppose you could also say that the double standard remains firmly in place, so I shouldn't hold my breath.

In any case, I feel I should at least get the Duncan Hunter "screw the Budhists and kill the Muslims" story out there for you--an elected official speaking in his capacity as an elected official (as opposed, you know, to a couple of bloggers on their personal blogs) now chairing a campaign for president who suffers from far worse religious intolerance than any campaign employee we have seen yet in this election season. Let the denunciations begin.

For Dan Kenitz

And McIlheran and Dad29 and Lance Burri:

The extension of the franchise to black citizens was strongly resisted. Among others, the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, and other terrorist organizations attempted to prevent the 15th Amendment from being enforced by violence and intimidation. Two decisions in 1876 by the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of enforcement under the Enforcement Act and the Force Act, and, together with the end of Reconstruction marked by the removal of federal troops after the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, resulted in a climate in which violence could be used to depress black voter turnout and fraud could be used to undo the effect of lawfully cast votes.

Once whites regained control of the state legislatures using these tactics, a process known as "Redemption," they used gerrymandering of election districts to further reduce black voting strength and minimize the number of black elected officials. In the 1890s, these states began to amend their constitutions and to enact a series of laws intended to re-establish and entrench white political supremacy.

Such disfranchising laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of "good character," and disqualification for "crimes of moral turpitude." These laws were "color-blind" on their face, but were designed to exclude black citizens disproportionately by allowing white election officials to apply the procedures selectively. Other laws and practices, such as the "white primary,", attempted to evade the 15th Amendment by allowing "private" political parties to conduct elections and establish qualifications for their members.

As a result of these efforts, in the former Confederate states nearly all black citizens were disenfranchised and removed from by 1910. The process of restoring the rights taken stolen by these tactics would take many decades.

--

Prior to passage of the federal Voting Rights Act in 1965, southern (and some western) states maintained elaborate voter registration procedures whose primary purpose was to deny the vote to those who were not white. In the South, this process was often called the "literacy test." In fact, it was much more than a simple test, it was an entire complex system devoted to denying African-Americans (and in some area, Latinos) the right to vote.

The registration procedures, and the Registrars who enforced them, were just one part of this interlocking system of racial discrimination and oppression. [. . .]

In Alabama, a typical registration process for an African-American citizen went something like this:

In the rural counties where most folk lived, you had to go down to the courthouse to register. The Registrars Office was only open two or three days each month for a couple of hours, usually in the morning or afternoon. You had to take off work — with or without your employer's permission — to register. And if a white employer gave such permission, or failed to fire an African-American who tried to vote, he could be driven out of business by economic retaliation from the Citizens Council.

On the occasional registration day, the county Sheriff and his deputies made it their business to hang around the courthouse to discourage "undesirables" from trying to register. This meant that Black women and men had to run a gauntlet of intimidation, insults, and threats just to get to the Registration office. Once in the Registrars Office they faced hatred, humiliation, and harassment from clerks and officials.

The Alabama Application Form and oaths you had to take were four pages long. It was designed to intimidate and threaten. You had to swear that your answers to every single question were true under penalty of perjury. And you knew that the information you entered on the form would be passed on to the Citizens Council and KKK. [. . .]

In addition to completing the application and swearing the oaths, you had to pass the actual "Literacy Test" itself. Because the Movement was running "Citizenship Schools" to help folk learn how to fill out the forms and pass the test, Alabama changed the test 4 times in less than two years (1964-1965). At the time of the Selma Voting Rights campaign there were actually 100 different tests in use. In theory, each applicant was supposed to chose one at random from a big loose-leaf binder. In real life, some individual tests were easier than others and the registrar made sure that Black applicants got the hardest ones. [. . .] Your application was then reviewed by the three-member Board of Registrars — often in secret at a later date. They voted on whether or not you passed. It was entirely up to the judgment of the Board whether you passed or failed. If you were white and missed every single question they could still pass you if — in their sole judgment — you were "qualified." If you were Black and got every one correct, they could still flunk you if they considered you "unqualified."

Your name was published in the local newspaper listing of those who had applied to register. That was to make sure that all of your employers, landlords, mortgage-holders, bank loan officers, business-suppliers, and etc, were kept informed of this important event. And, of course, all of the information on your application was quietly passed under the table to the White Citizens Council and KKK for appropriate action. Their job was to encourage you to withdraw your application, — or withdraw yourself out of the county, — by whatever means they deemed necessary.

If you're stupid, they say, don't vote. Sounds familiar.

More on my Deferred Compensation Battle

The post I wrote the other day facetiously comparing pensions and retiree health care to Dick Cheney's deferred compensation--but making a serious point about how public sector employees should not be quite the targets they are--has itself been a target. the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran, whose post inspired that compensation rant, graciously defers (get it?) to Dad29 to do the dirty work.

Dad29, on his way to becoming my own stalker, perhaps, tries to show that, compared to others, teachers don't have it so bad in the pay department. Therefore (he implies) I should just shut my trap when conservatives demand we--or other public employees--give up the benefits we have leaglly baragined for. He even throws in the old "all those other folks work 12 months a year" just so you know he's original.

Of course, I never said I wanted more pay. I said, in fact, that people like me have voluntarily chosen less pay in exchange for, essentially, deferred compensation--penisons and health care upon retirement. He also notes, helpfully, that average pay for all workers in Wisconsin shot up 10% between 2002 and 2005--considerably more than teacher pay rose in that time.

Rick Esenberg, in comments to that original post, complains that the burden of pensions and retiree health care is too great and, he says, way better than what your average bear retires on. This means--again, implied--that our benfits need to be trimmed, rather than health care needing to be cheaper or everyone else's retirement needing to be sweeter. (I love it when someone complains about how good I have it. Why, I ask them, are you complaining about mine? Sounds like you should be complaining about yours.)

But not everyone is complaining. Jim McGuigan revises and extends my remarks:

To expand on his argument, there is no 401-K and no profit sharing plan public sector employees can enjoy. The GOP isn’t really too stupid to be able to figure that out, they just don’t have the little guy in mind with any of their policies. That’s why they support tax cuts for the wealthy and don’t bat an eye at multi-million dollar executive compensation packages that are hundreds of times the salary of some of their employees.

Deferred compensation and pensions are ways for companies to meet todays needs while allowing the company the ability to use its capital to grow the business now. Public pension plans are a little different in that if they do especially well with investments, the government entity is not allowed to draw any excess from them to pay for existing expenses.

Thanks, Jim.

And, perhaps most surprising of all, Republican extraordinaire Deb Jordhal steps up for me:

A pension is not a gift from employer to employee; it is part of an employee's overall compensation package, and when employment terminates, the pension belongs to the employee. Any attempt by the legislature to seize that property is not likely hold up in court, especially if it’s done retroactively.

Let's remember that, people, as the demands to wring public employees trying to solve bigger budget mismanagement problems keep coming.