Quote:
Originally Posted by Pats2010
Many times the public unions were asked to take a decrease in their increase and they refused to budge. Their lack of sympathy for the people who pay their healthy wages is astonishing.
I was reading today that the union is fighting to keep the sex enhancing drug Viagra, in their many health benefits. It will cost the taxpayers $750,000 for the unions to keep their Viagra. Don't they have no shame?
|
Re the first part of your statement about unions refusing to take a decrease in their [negotiated - my reminder] increase and their lack of sympathy for the people who pay their healthy wages.....
my first point is that the members of any municipal/county/state pension plan is probably a taxpayer of that municipality/county/state who is and has been paying their taxes there all along. in the words of jimmy buffett - we are the people our parents warned us about.
Re the last point of refusing to give up viagra, i contend that giving up
any prescription drug begins the slippery slope - what drug will you want eliminated next? it reminds me of the arguments during the health care legislation debates about diminished care for the elderly or the newborns who have little hope of survival because of serious birth defects.
this point could be one that might be better addressed by asking the union members to pay a greater share of certain categories of drugs. where do you see shame in the desire or need to take viagra? who are we to judge whether a public employee should live with or without the benefit of a fulfilling sex life?
i usually find that people frequently seek to claim to have the right answer or the wrong answer and rarely will they seek to find what is the best answer.
Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians