The Constant Weader Disagrees with -- Herself

David Brooks writes that the main reason states do little to improve infrastructure or make other investments in the future is that they are too invested in their pasts. Brooks writes that "New Jersey can’t afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state’s employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company." He notes that California & New York City are in the same bind. "All in all," Brooks writes, "governments can’t promote future prosperity because they are strangling on their own self-indulgence."

Early this morning, at about 12:30 am, I responded. After a few hours sleep, however, I realized I got it wrong. This is what I wrote in the wee hours:

Back in the day, people took government jobs for the security, not for the pay, because government jobs paid less than equivalent jobs in the private sector. That balance should be the goal of today's officials -- that is, jobs that guarantee secure retirements should pay less than equivalent jobs that don't. Private- & public-sector employees should, on balance, receive "equal" remuneration, whether they get it up-front in higher pay or down the road in retirement benefits.

Government entities cannot break the commitments they have made & on which current public employees & retirees rely, but they do need to re-calibrate pay grades for incoming government workers.

That alone would do a lot to enhance the public's opinion of government. There is nothing so aggravating to a citizen as being forced to haggle with a bureaucrat who has the luxury to be unhelpful, careless & unstoppable. To know that the bureaucrat is also overpaid on your tax dollar just adds insult to injury. When I see those tea party ladies railing against the government, I know that some of them aren't mad at the President; they're mad at the last "public servant" who refused them some service that was their due.

There are plenty of good public employees who do their jobs well & go above & beyond the call when necessary. But I'm with the tea party gang on this much: I want to "take my country back" from public employees who give no indication they know they're working for me.

The Perp. New York Times photo.Oh my. I let Brooks seduce me. What a repulsive realization. It was late. I'd had a glass of wine. Call it date rape. Yuck!

What I should have written is obvious:

Brooks is always wrong.

It isn't public workers who are paid too much. It's private-sector workers who are paid too little. It isn't so much that unions have captured states; it's that state & federal laws have made it difficult for unions to keep or get a toehold in private industry.

Update: or as David Dayan of Firedoglake puts it: "Shorter David Brooks: We’d have a hell of a country if only we didn’t have to pay the public employees."