Don't know how that would work in most areas that don't share municipalities. Kansas City, KS/MO or St. Louis, MO/E. St. Louis, IL are examples of how such an idea could work, but you'd have to get both states involved to agree to share the responsiblities. Seeing that each state is very reluctant to give up its soveignty, I don't see this happening across state-lines. Moreover, cities and counties can also be very protective of their slice of the revenue pie. Novel concept, but I doubt it will work unless both sides see the mutual benefits.I am also for the regionalization of schools and police and fire forces... We don't need 50+ chiefs in my county making 100k+ a year.... (some well over 300)
True, but you're wrongly equating private business practises to state government policies and laws, not to mention market factors that DON'T necessary affect state budgets in much the same way. Don't know what kind of business you operate, but I'm willing to bet yours is affected by the laws of supply and demand and changes in the marketplace. State governments aren't affected in that same way though they do feel the impact across the board if not enough revenue is generated mostly via their tax policies, i.e., sales, use and property taxes. Your business is likely most effected by consumer demand which is a far more simplier manipulator to compensate for. Not enough customers? Promote special discount sales, improve a product line or add something new even on a temporary basis (i.e., seasonal sales), or do more direct mail marketings...whatever it takes to increase and/or focus your customer base. States don't necessarily have that luxury, and even if they do they don't rely on "impulse buying" to general sales nor discounts. That (discounting via lower corporate tax rates) may work for inticing a business to a particular state, but it has little effect on people settling in a state. What DOES lure people to settle to a state are it's property and sales tax rates, crime, cleaniness, school systems and leisure/recreational activities not to mention the overall cost of living. These such things are often grossly affected when states start excising their public servants.I own a company, if i can't afford to pay my employees, either I cut thier pay, or I lay them off... Why should states be allowed to run at such deficits?
We simply can not afford it.
You misread me here. I am saying that it's not always the fault of public servants that their state's budgets are in disarray, yet they're always the first to feel the pinch. Why when it wasn't their salaries, their pensions, their employee benefits that caused the problems most states are facing in the first place? Public servants, just like regular employees in the private sector, are always the first to get hit when financial problems arise. However, in the private sector it's understandble why "last hired, first fired" is a mainstay...once you're done everything the business can do to reduce costs, i.e., energy saving strategies, cost-savings techniques like changing outdated equipment, switching vendors or reworking or dropping certain contracts altogether when practical, changing benefit plans, freezing new hires and a host of other things, once a business has taken the necessary steps in these such areas and are still having financial problems, then and only then should the layoff occur. And I suspect most businesses do go through these and many other such steps first. State government doesn't quite have these such luxuries to make such adjustments in their financies. But what they do have is the benefit of their financial history, just as most businesses do, inwhich to pull figures from year's past. I'm not saying formulating a state's budget is that easy, but if a state is projecting their financial forecasts on projections and not on how their budgets were on average in reviewing past budgets, for example, then they're very liable to place their financial house in disarray.Wait, everyone should be cut but union workers because they can bargain? I misread this, no?
I don't think unions are asking for more for their membership right now. If you can provide any evidence to the contrary, I'd ask that you provide it. Still, I agree with you that merit pay is far better than basing public worker pay on seniority (tenure).Merit... base it on merit, if the unions were for merit (I think they are in NJ which is why christie is not trying to bust the unions, and I agree here), then I would have more sympathy. But given what they are paid, the amount of time off, to me it seems they want more and more for less and less, in a time when we simply can not afford it.