lunes, 13 de diciembre de 2010

Pawlenty presume de su historial reformista en el WSJ

El Wall Street Journal publica esta mañana un artículo de opinión escrito por Tim Pawlenty. El Gobernador critica el poder de los sindicatos de empleados públicos, y recuerda sus acciones en Minnesota para forzar a los sindicatos de empleados gubernamentales a aceptar reformas.

(...) The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America's working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation.

Much has changed. The majority of union members today no longer work in construction, manufacturing or "strong back" jobs. They work for government, which, thanks to President Obama, has become the only booming "industry" left in our economy. Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly eight million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000.

Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.

(...) Over the last eight years in Minnesota, we have taken decisive action to prevent our problems from becoming a state crisis. Public employee unions fought us virtually every step of the way. Mass transit employees, for example, went on strike for 44 days in 2005—because we refused to grant them lifetime health-care benefits after working just 15 years. It was a tough fight, but in the end Minnesota taxpayers won.

We reworked benefits for new hires. We required existing employees to contribute more to their pensions. We reformed our public employee health plan and froze wages.

We proved that even in deep-blue Minnesota, taxpayers can take on big government and big labor, and win. In coming years, that fight will have to be joined throughout the country in city halls, state capitals and in Washington, D.C.

Reformers would be wise to adopt three overriding principles.

First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama's proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees.

Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities.

Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars. (...)

2 comentarios:

Anónimo dijo...

Como he dicho en el anterior post no conozco demasiado a Pawlwnty. No se que tipo de gobernador ha sido en Minnesota pero en las encuestas pierde en el estado de Minnesota con Obama, y por bastante, con lo que tengo mis dudas que sea un candidato viable. Es cierto que queda muchísimo pero la primera impresión no ha sido muy positiva. En la encuesta PPP es Romney quien más cerca esta de Obama, tres escasos puntos por debajo, en la eleccion general en el estado de Minnesota.

Un abrazo desde España

Casto Martín

Antxon G. dijo...

Tampoco creas que Romney va a ganar Massachusetts en unas presidenciales.

Pawlenty es un hombre del Medio Oeste, gobernador de dos mandatos en un estado que está en el Top-10 de estados con menos paro de la Unión, reelegido en 2006 en un año desastroso para los republicanos a nivel nacional, bien visto por el Tea party, bien visto por el establishment, bien visto por los conservadores sociales, bien visto por la CATO. Lo difícil para él será ganar las primarias porque tiene perfil bajo y no es una estrella de rock, pero si fuera nominado sería un candidato con un historial incuestionable.