Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

Lumping the feds with state and local is completely disingenuous. The rules just aren't the same when it comes to spending money.

And to expand on Tek's point, yes, it's the actual politics that make government jobs such a pain in the ass. For several years, I reported to a joint committee of school board and city council members, and that was the worst. I frequently had to tell them they couldn't do certain things because it was self-serving or ethically wrong. It was a constant battle. Since that time, working in everything from start-ups to the world's most profitable non-oil company, I've never encountered that kind of stuff. It's a completely different world, and suggesting that it's all easy and requires no work is as silly a generalization as suggesting that "government" can't do anything right.

Aamilj seems to imply that all public sector jobs are overpaid andunderworked.

I prefer to let my words speak for themselves, rather than have themmisinterpreted by others.

My contention is that government involvement in rollercoaster building isprepostourous. My contention is that such use of taxpayer funds is acomplete bastardization of the limitations in government our forefathersinvisioned. I contend that it is no surprise that the Green BayGovernment used faulty numbers to sell the public and pass the million dollarplus expenditure by a 7-4 vote. Government, at all levels, has along history of underestimating costs while begging for votes. I contendthat I'm not the least bit surprised they are currently 500K over budget. I contend that it will not surprise anybody in the least if this numbercontinues to grow. In fact, I would be more shocked if the number stayedthe same... That sums up my initial contention.

As the conversation evolved, we have inserted an argument that the"stupid public" doesn't get it. They whine when firestationsare closed etc. In response to this line of thinking...

I contend that the public sector has a lot of nerve to ask the taxpayer tofoot more of their expenditures via tax increases etc, when the publicsector is doing better than the people they are asking to pay. Icontend that pension expenditures in the public sector are grossly out of lineand simply unsustainable. I contend that building rollercoasters in themidst of recession spits in the face of the private sector.

I will now insert a new contention as the discussion develops. Icontend that until public salaries and pension plans are comparable to thefolks that foot the bill, then public employees have no ground to standon. I contend that one of the FIRST options for ALL government agenciesat ALL levels is to thoroughly review salary and pension packages and THENbring compensation in line with what it should be in a free market. Icontend that all union contracts should be reviewed and brought into line withfair compensation across the board. If current public employees areunwilling to work at the market rate, I contend we show them the door. Icontend that pension plans will simply have to be reduced, as they have been inthe private sector (see airline retirement plans) in order to work in thecurrent environment where government has promised more than it candeliver. I contend that all salaries in the public sector should be basedon merit, not senority. I contend that poor/bad government workers shouldbe fired at will, like most private sector jobs.

Once ALL of these steps have been taken to comfort and assure the taxpayerthat the government is indeed of, by, and for the people...and we havelegitimate government needs (i.e. building stadiums and rollercoasters do notpass for legitimate in my opinion), THEN, and only THEN, should we talk abouttax structures/increases needed to fund those legitimate needs.

Public sector jobs now pay better and have better benefits than the private sector,

Your words. And don't pull the 'You don't comprehend' nonsense because I do. I was trying to be polite and not accusatory.

I contend that one of the FIRST options for ALL government agenciesat ALL levels is to thoroughly review salary and pension packages and THENbring compensation in line with what it should be in a free market.

I'm SO glad you said that. My last employer, one of the 50 state governments in this country, did just that last year. And you know what they found out? The pay and benefits packages they were 'giving out'? Were so below what the free market was paying for the same job that I got a $4500 raise last year, which brought me up to 'only' about $1000 less than the average (the state's plan was to give incremental raises ove rthe course of a year to get to the free market average, as they couldn't afford to do it all at once).

Before that raise, I was making just over $19k doing a job that (were there any private sector alternatives in the area) would have paid $24500. That was why the state couldn't keep people in that position outside of the area I lived in (because the economy was so poor, there were no private sector alternatives). They realized that it was actually cheaper to pay us what the free market average for our jobs were, than to hire and loose so many people.

Now I'm doing the same type of work, but it's governed by the county (which pays substantially more than the last state I worked for), and yet still, I could probably go get a private sector job in Charlotte, Greensboro, or Winston Salem were I so inclined, doing the same thing, and the pay is more in the area in the private sector. And one day I may just do that, but for now, I like working with the publicly funded programs because I've done so for the last 6+ years. Many people I work with came from other counties because their local government cut jobs/pay/benefits when new elected officials came in.

Kudos on actually mentioning coasters in that post, though.

As far as *that* goes, if the local government feels that spending a couple million to open a new buisness up, which employes people, and offers a benefit to the local constituency, then I'd say that they are indeed for, by, and of the people.

The provided link from USA Today has information on State and Local government salaries too. Some may have missed that part.

• •State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.

You keep bringing up benefits, but the thing about that is...So what? So governments offer good benefits. If people in the private sector aren't demanding better benefits, then you can't blame the people in the public sector that are smart enough and care enough about their future to do so.

Oh, yeah, it impacts taxpayers. Well, the last time I looked, this public worker paid taxes too. I'm much more concerned with the fact that come 2014 you will be able to get both Foodstamps AND Medicaid if you don't make enough money. And trust me when I say that THAT is going to impact government spending far more than any benefits us overpaid/underworked taxpaying public workers' benefits ever will.

I worked in the private sector. Even in the good jobs I had, the benefits were terrible. And that was at a company that makes billions of dollars a year, but can't 'afford' to pay a living wage, according to the CEO.

Complain all you want, but frivilous spending on welfare programs (which would be beneficial if they'd actually fix THAT system) is worse than the benefits that public workers (and their unions, thanks) 'demand'. And in the end, I'd much rather my taxes go to someone's salary, than someone's welfare.

p.s. Unless I missed it, did you ever answer as to whether you ever worked in the public sector? If if not, then why not? You make it sound very glamorous, anyone who isn't knocking down the door would be stupid not to!

Tekwardo said:
If people in the private sector aren't demanding better benefits, then you can't blame the people in the public sector that are smart enough and care enough about their future to do so.

There are rarely companies that can afford the pension plans that some public sector employees enjoy. I find it incredibly insulting that you assume that the only reason I don't have a pension plan is because I'm not intelligent enough to demand that my employer provide one.

Benefits tend to be better for state and local jobs, because they get a free pass to privatize these systems a lot of the time. Ohio runs its own retirement system (there's one for education workers as well), which you pay into instead of social security, and it buries SS in terms of payout and benefits. In fact, it's an excellent example of local/state government doing something better.

Aamilj said:
My contention is that government involvement in rollercoaster building isprepostourous. My contention is that such use of taxpayer funds is acomplete bastardization of the limitations in government our forefathersinvisioned.

This is such an idealistic point to make that frankly is counter to the spirit of what the founders of this country were looking for. They were practical, and not dogmatic the way that people who say things like this are.

Being practical, you can see that local governments usually run parks and recreation departments, which have measurable impact on the quality of life for its residents. People want that, and government is supposed to work for the people. I worked in two municipalities where issues went up for rec centers, and both passed. They provided services that ultimately paid for themselves, and were a point for growing the community and expanding its tax base to maintain a high level of service.

And is putting a roller coaster in a park not just an extension of that? It will be source of pride for that city for decades and enrich the community. Have you noticed there was no public outcry against it? That gets back to my point, that local government in particular is strongly accountable to its people.

All government pensions should be frozen. Today. They are unsustainable. And yes, there is a lot of other government spending that should be cut as well. And not every government worker has a pension. But a large portion of the deficits that the states are facing over the coming years are directly related to unfunded pension costs.

djDemon, if the benefits are so much better in the public sector, and you're not getting them, why aren't y'all beating down the door? That's what I implied and stated. If you complain about it, but do nothing about it (like finding a job with better benefits), you're not very smart.

Jeff said:
Benefits tend to be better for state and local jobs, because they get a free pass to privatize these systems a lot of the time. Ohio runs its own retirement system (there's one for education workers as well), which you pay into instead of social security, and it buries SS in terms of payout and benefits. In fact, it's an excellent example of local/state government doing something better.

We can argue what things the government may be able to do better. But it makes no sense to me to compare the bankrupt federal social security program to the bankrupt state pension systems. State pension plans are underwater to the tune of about $1 trillion. States pension plans are borrowing money to pay current benefits. States will either need to cut future spending or raise taxes to repay the debt. Not at all an example of doing something right or doing it better. Private pension plans buried social security as well. And just about all companies have abandoned them for defined contribution plans (at least for non-union employees). And many companies went bankrupt because of pension plan (and post-retirement healthcare costs). Taxpayers are paying for the portion of promised benefits those folks now receive through the PBGC.

Systems that allow people to work 25-30 years and retire (likely living another 20-30 years) with 80% of salary plus medical benefits (and provide medical benefits and pay portions of pensions to spouses for life) are unsustainable. Take a retirement calculator and see how much money you need to save to be able to buy that type of annuity. Its a whole lot more than any public employee I know puts away for their retirement.

And the feds actually got something right in terms of retirement. They largely went to defined contribution plans rather than defined benefit plans several years ago. Whatever you save and whatever amount it earns is what you have for your retirement. Like the rest of us (at least private non-union folks anyway).

Nobody is arguing against the intelligence of those who choose to go the public sector route. From a pure economical perspective, this is indeed a wise decision in a lot of cases.

My contention is that it is stupid for the private taxpayer to support governmental agencies that lie about facts and figures in order to steal your vote. The private taxpayer should demand a heck of a lot more accountability and transparency. Pension benefits should always be explained and added to salaries when apples to apples comparisons are made. When Mr. Government comes whining about a new tax needed for a new fire station, more police officers, a rollercoaster for the town park...the taxpayer needs to think long and hard about whether this stuff is really needed or these are just politicians playing the game. The Taxpayer needs to look at all cost projections with a very cynical eye, since so many of these projections are BS designed to bait and switch AFTER they get the vote.

For the record, anybody who read the article is aware that this did not pass without "public outcry." It passed 7-4 and there were public members quite upset that their money was being spent on this project. It is all there.

As for he/she who inserted welfare/Medicaid/etc into the debate...believe me I have more opinions than time on that. Safe to say that it appears I would agree with what was said...

GoBucks89 said:
[State pension plans are underwater to the tune of about $1 trillion. States pension plans are borrowing money to pay current benefits.

And the one I was speaking of is not one of those.

Aamilj said:
My contention is that it is stupid for the private taxpayer to support governmental agencies that lie about facts and figures in order to steal your vote.

Really? Because you seem to keep changing your contention. I thought you were just against it on principle, but now you're just accusing people of lying? Or generalizing that they lie? How does having cost overruns on your watch score you votes, by the way?

For the record, anybody who read the article is aware that this did not pass without "public outcry." It passed 7-4 and there were public members quite upset that their money was being spent on this project. It is all there.

I read the article, and didn't see any mention of that vote. Even if that is the case, that's not "public outcry," that's democracy doing its thing. Council voted the way they felt their constituents felt they would want them to vote.

Tekwardo said:
djDemon, if the benefits are so much better in the public sector, and you're not getting them, why aren't y'all beating down the door? That's what I implied and stated. If you complain about it, but do nothing about it (like finding a job with better benefits), you're not very smart.

I wasn't complaining about my lack of a lifelong pension.

I was refuting your assertion that there are oodles of public or private sector jobs with pensions, just waiting to be taken by people who aren't stupid (like me, apparently).

I have pretty darn good benefits currently. No, I don't have a pension, but that's the rule, not the exception (in the private sector, anyway). I get the impression that, much like you assert regarding Aamilj's ignorance regarding public sector benefits, you don't seem very knowledgeable about the benefits available to the overwhelming majority of private sector workers.

And that lack of pension availability has far less to do with us private sector morons not being smrt enuff to ask for them, and far more to do with such benefits simply not being sustainable in a competitive market.

djDaemon said:
I wasn't complaining about my lack of a lifelong pension.

Well then, what I said wasn't directed, nor did it apply to you then, did it?

I was refuting your assertion that there are oodles of public or private sector jobs with pensions,

I never said there were oodles of jobs with pensions. Aamilj made a broad, negative statement about people working in the public sector with pensions, and how those evil public employees complain when the private sector employees whine about taxes. Funny, it's okay to make broad, negative generalizations about one group, as long as no one makes broad generalizations about your group. I see how it works now.

just waiting to be taken by people who aren't stupid (like me, apparently).

You want to focus on that because it seems like you (as usual) *want* to be offended. Fine. My point was directed to Aamilj, and saying that if it's so much better as a public employee, then why isn't he activly trying to get a job in the public sector? If our pay and benefits are so much better, then is he trying to find something better? And yes, I think anyone who stays where they are and doesn't try to better themselves, either when given the opportunity or by making an opportunity, is pretty dumb.

I have pretty darn good benefits currently.

Good for you, so do I

No, I don't have a pension, but that's the rule, not the exception (in the private sector, anyway). I get the impression that, much like you assert regarding Aamilj's ignorance regarding public sector benefits, you don't seem very knowledgeable about the benefits available to the overwhelming majority of private sector workers.

So you take what I say as an attack on your intelligence (when I wasn't even directing it at you), so you'll attack mine. Fine. But to be honest, yes, I understand how benefits in the private sector work. That's why I left it and came to work for the public sector, DUH!

And that lack of pension availability has far less to do with us private sector morons not being smrt enuff to ask for them, and far more to do with such benefits simply not being sustainable in a competitive market.

I never said anything otherwise. I was simply saying that if someone is unhappy with their pension or benefits enough to complain about it, then they have the option to actively search for a solution, be it by looking for benefits with their own company, going to another job with better benefits, or going into the public sector which offers those benefits.

If all you do is complain (and I never said nor implied that YOU were), but don't do something to better your circumstances, you're pretty stupid.

But if you want to go on feeling like I insulted you, fine. Whatever makes you feel better.

Tekwardo said:
Funny, it's okay to make broad, negative generalizations about one group, as long as no one makes broad generalizations about your group. I see how it works now.

I don't agree with Aamilj. I agree with the majority of your contentions, aside from what I saw as an ignorant assumption regarding the availability of benefits in the private sector.

You want to focus on that because it seems like you (as usual) *want* to be offended.

I don't want to be offended. I simply think your assertion (or at least the assertion it appeared you were making) was ignorant.

Good for you, then why are you complaining about mine?

For what I hope is the last time - I'm not complaining about your benefits. I think it's great that taxpayers are footing the bill for your entire retirement (if that is the case).

I actually edited that last part before your response because when I read back over it, I realized that that didn't apply to you.

Well, a cost increase is strike one. Now I only need like 3 more problems to prove my "ghost of Elvis Presley" theory.

I don't agree with Aamilj.

That seems reasonable, lots of people don't agree on a lot of issues. It helps facilitate discussion of differences if you point out what it is you don't agree with though. Best to use what I've said, not what others think I've said or say I said. Lots of personal stuff coming from one direction. I prefer to let arguments stand on their merits. on a side note, I tend to agree with everything (I think) dj has argued.

I think this has been covered a few times, but correcting wrong assumptions seems appropriate. Nobody thinks any individual who betters his situation via salary, location, benefits, or any combination thereof is wrong. Nobody has said working in the public sector is bad. At least I've not said that.

What have said is that I'm tired of government employees always arguing that we need more taxes to pay for projects that they think are important when the public sector is already doing better than the folks they want to foot the bill. I've argued that rollercoaster building is a poor use of taxpayer funds. I've also argued that government entities underestimating project costs to get votes to pass, only to later introduce the real costs when it is too late for the taxpayer to recoup the money already invested...is wrong. Think about it. If the public at Green Bay wanted to say NO to this 500k overrun...what can they do? What are their alternatives? They could write off the millions already spent on the partial built coaster, or they can just accept that more bonds will be issued which they will ultimately be left holding IF this project fails.

I believe that government employees who push pet projects on the taxpayer dime should have the integrity to be open and honest about the risks and true costs involved. I have seen this same type of underestimation of costs from politicians too many times to believe that this is just chance. I think it is a tactic. As such I think the taxpayer has every right to be cynical when politicians or average citizens argue about the need for more taxes. I think that might have been a lot of what we saw in this past election cycle.

These are my main arguments. Anybody who presents it otherwise is either misinterpreting or lying. Not one thing in there says all public employees are bad, etc. Now, of course people disagree with some or all my opinions, and not once have I personally attacked attacked anyone for doing so. Some think that a rollercoaster with the current 500K overrun is good use of public monies. I disagree. I'm not mad about it. I'm not going to call names, or even use names. I respect the disagreement while maintaining my own beliefs. I will correct those who bastardize my argument into something they can more easily attack. This is what we call the straw man attack. If you are unwilling or incapable of arguing with what somebody says, then "make-up" something under the guise of implication (i.e. the straw man)and attack the straw man as if it were real.

Aamilj said:
It helps facilitate discussion of differences if you point out what it is you don't agree with though.

The reason I didn't state my specific disagreements is because Tek's & Jeff's points have covered that ground quite thoroughly.