As employees of the state, teachers’ compensation is fair game when it comes to balancing the budget.

Teachers will cry out that their mission in life is so critical that doing anything other than paying them more is tantamount to squandering the futures of our children.

For decades now their unions have successfully foisted the ruse upon the taxpayer that higher spending on education is absolutely necessary for better educating our children.

Their argument has guilted us into spending more money on what is most precious to us, our children. Well, now we’re broke. The gravy train is skidding to a halt, and the fat and happy teachocracy has been jolted from its banquet in the dining car. Welcome to Recessionville.

Case in point: A Lewiston teacher of 34 years recoiled at the notion of extending her educational ministry for three more years as part of a compromise to help close Maine’s budget gap.

After all, she had well-laid plans to work only until the age of 62.

As taxpayers, we too had plans for our investment in public education. We had planned to see our kids show year-to-year improvement in their academic performance. We had planned to see our kids become more proficient, not less, at the core skills of reading, writing and math. Instead, our investment, like the teachers’ pension fund, has turned out to be a bust.

More spending on education does not produce better results. Maine SAT scores are consistently below the national average for math and English and have steadily declined since the early 1990s.

On second thought, perhaps we should encourage today’s crop of teachers to retire sooner rather than later. We need better teachers, not more expensive ones.

David Sawicki

Portland

 

The governor’s proposals to reduce the real income of the state retirees and retired teachers on fixed incomes make no sense to me.

As currently projected, the retirees would have no increase for inflation for two years and the increase would be limited to a maximum of 2 percent in years 3 through 5.

If the inflation rate were 3 percent over those years, a retiree would have a 9 percent decrease in real money over that time. If the inflation rate were 4 percent, which is not unreasonable considering the projections for gas and oil, the loss in real income would be 11 percent.

As proposed, this tax on retirees’ income would not even be earmarked for the problems in the funding of the retirement system, but would go into the general fund. State retirees and teachers are the only group targeted by this retirement tax.

Where is the shared sacrifice that the governor talks about? Perhaps all Mainers should face a 9 percent to 11 percent reduction in real income to help pay for the state deficit. No, that would never fly. In fact, it would probably be illegal. Yet it is fine to add this burden to the former state workers and teachers.

If the governor required oil companies, gas stations, grocery stores, utilities, credit card companies, lending institutions, insurance companies and medical facilities and all other places that retirees spend their meager retirement income to reduce their fees/charges to the said retirees to the current levels for that same five years, then the retirees would not be the only ones sacrificing.

That would be “shared sacrifice.”

Lance Libby

Bowdoin

Private-sector employees often have to plan and save for their own retirements, while simultaneously paying into Social Security, Medicare and their own health care packages plus paying for the state workers’ retirement funds.

Maine’s state workers seem to feel entitled to have their retirement paid for by the public. That’s what they were promised, right?

What’s being missed here is that the pensions promised over the last 30 years were poorly planned, under-funded and are impossible to deliver unless concessions are made now.

Maine is in dire straits and has massive debt. Gov. LePage’s budget proposal strives to salvage teachers’ and state employees’ pensions and their jobs while reducing the unsustainable debt forced upon Maine taxpayers.

State workers are being asked to give a little to save a lot. Many private-sector jobs have been lost, homes sacrificed and huge sacrifices made.

Chris Quint, executive director of the Maine State Employees Association, has said, “LePage is balancing the budget on the backs of 15,000 state workers with $524 million in proposed cuts in retirement and health benefits.”

Yet there is no mention of the cuts already made in the lives of thousands of other Mainers who work in the private sector. Quint said the union would consider “reasonable options.” However, unions are notorious for refusing to concede any benefits, sometimes to their own detriment.

The result is often massive layoffs, as in New Jersey recently, with law enforcement and firefighters. State Treasurer Bruce Poliquin eloquently laid out the reasons and purposes behind the LePage proposal. They make sense to me.

I would advise people to look at both sides of this deal before resorting to, as Quint stated, “members asking us when we’re going to take to the streets.”

Teachers don’t preach violence, do they? Let’s use our heads here, not our fists.

Gayle Blydenstein

Waterville

 

I am very concerned about the governor’s proposed budget cuts in the Maine State Retirement System. I retired based on facts that were presented to me by the retirement system.

As a state employee, I was mandated to participate in the retirement system and not Social Security. If the governor wants to change the retirement system, he cannot change it on the backs of people who worked for the state for more than 25 years and retired in good standing or vested state employees currently working.

The state of Maine failed to pay its share into the retirement system, while we, the workers, paid our share. Now, however, we are expected to bear the burden because the state will not fulfill its financial contractual obligations to state employees.

I went to the State House on March 2 to show my disapproval of the governor’s budget as it relates to the retirement changes. There, I saw signs calling state workers greedy.

I just want to say to people calling state workers greedy, shame on you. Gov. LePage is creating an atmosphere that devalues state retirees and current workers, an atmosphere that pits non-state workers against state workers.

We are not the guilty parties here. As taxpayers, our tax dollars are also going to pay the state’s financial obligations. I worked for the Department of Health and Human Services for 30 years. I worked very hard every day as did my peers providing customer services to the citizens of the state of Maine.

Currently vested state employees have based their careers on the contractual retirement agreements. Retirees based their economic future on their contractual agreements.

I realize changes must be made. However, those changes could more reasonably be made for new hires and non-vested employees.

Jane Connors

Litchfield

 

The issue of state pensions and funding creates differing points of view. What it really boils down to is whether a state has the money to fund the system as it is.

Should the state go broke, then there would be no pensions, and it sometimes appear that those who complain should reconsider their objections.

It would seem that perhaps the state should consider following Social Security and allow only spouses to receive death benefits, with minor children receiving benefits until the age of 18 but allow children with disabilities to continue to receive those benefits.

Perhaps another solution would be to have teachers contribute to Social Security and the pension system, thereby reducing the state’s burden.

It’s not easy to resolve an issue such as this, but choices have to be made to insure the pension system remains solvent and differing sides have to make concessions in order to insure that solvency.

Anne Milton

Springvale

 

The vilification of teachers is positively appalling. The hard work of these dedicated professionals for our children is remarkable.

What other profession requires continuing education and recertification every three to five years (paid for by the teachers)? Doctors maybe? Rescue workers? Police?

Beyond that, very few jobs require this level of training and rigor. Certainly not the Marden’s general manager job. Yet teachers and their “villainous” unions are the problem.

I am a former teacher who couldn’t hack it. The long hours, low pay and lack of respect were simply too much. Offered a job in the private sector doubling my salary with a 9-5 schedule, I jumped.

As in every profession, there are those that abuse it, but I’ve seen the same hangers-on in my private-sector job as I did as a teacher.

There is indeed some fat to be trimmed, but in the haste to assign blame and fall lockstep into the jingoistic drumbeat of the sky-is-falling tea party, we are missing the long view and alienating those whom we can ill afford to push away.

How dare you, Govs. LePage and Walker? The vitriol and venom directed at these professionals is so very misdirected.

To estrange those who dedicate themselves to the advancement of our most important resource is shortsighted and just plain foolish.

The “current economic environment” is not the doing of teachers or their unions. I encourage you to direct your toxic spite at those who really deserve it.

You are risking far too much. It is your duty to honor the commitments made to these professionals and make the profession attractive to the best and the brightest. If you don’t, it is plain to see that you risk the future of the states you pretend to protect.

Scott Tombleson

Portland

 

Fiscal judgment day is here for the state of Maine and the public-sector unions (MSEA, MEA, etc) are screaming that any concessions by them would be “unfair.”

I wonder how fair it is to have a unionized public work force operating a monopoly (government services) with compensation and perks that far exceed what could be expected in the private sector? Or is it fair that public-sector productivity improvement lags the private sector while public-sector compensation increases exceeded that of the private sector?

Or is it fair that public-sector workers can retire after as little as 20 to 25 years of work while many private-sector workers have to work 45-plus years? And is it fair that government workers get low- or no-cost medical care and insurance while private workers have to pay a good portion of their own medical care and insurance?

Unions advocate for union members and not for the taxpaying public, so their position is understandable.

But now they assert that fairness means paying the public-sector worker more for producing less when compared to the private sector. How is that fair?

While the unions are protesting and expressing their rage in Augusta, small-business owners (who pay most of the taxes that support the union workers’ perks) are just quietly researching options for relocating.

If and when the private sector loses confidence in the state to control its spending, they will simply move their businesses elsewhere. Unions can blockade the State House, but they can’t block Interstate 95.

The reality is that the advantages enjoyed by public-sector workers over the private sector are not justified, fair or affordable, and adjustments are needed.

It will be a little pain now or a lot of pain later. Welcome to the real world.

Dennis Caron

Cumberland Center

 

Thanks to Bill Nemitz for his reporting on Kelley McDaniel’s brilliant comments at the state budget hearings (“A pointed budget message hits the mark,” March 3). And kudos to Kelley for speaking up, speaking out and speaking truth to power.

In her three minutes of allotted time, she was able to say what most decent, honest folks believe: That the rich get special treatment, while working people continue to lose their already limited benefits.

The only way to reverse this frightening trend is for more of us to speak up and not buckle under to the powerful interests. Kelley has shown us the way.

Barbara Doughty

Portland

 

I’ve been following the news, both local and national, about the antipathy directed toward publicly employed union members who are understandably anxious about their pensions and health care coverage.

It is indeed no surprise that Maine’s newly (and unfortunately) elected governor has decided that teachers and state employees are fair game in his “solution” to help balance the state books.

What is especially insidious about the governor wanting to have his way with state workers and teachers is his apparent contempt for unionized people who spend their careers in serving the people of Maine.

Also troubling is how Mr. LePage and his cohorts seem to have been successful in stirring up a certain number of working-class people who do not appear to realize that conservative Republican politicians seldom seem to care about working folks getting fair treatment at all.

The governor and his ilk are evidently exploiting the frustrations and resentments of people without a union to go to bat for them by turning many of these good people against Maine’s teachers and state workers.

I can only hope that when all is said and done that the state Legislature has the wisdom to reject Mr. LePage’s egregious proposals.

Bob Barter

Berwick

 

I am writing in response to the editorial, “Public worker protests show system breakdown,” Feb. 24.

I am appalled that the writer would refer to the show of solidarity among workers tired of being disenfranchised by corporate CEOs as “irritating.” What’s happening in Wisconsin and at rallies across the country is nothing less than inspirational.

It’s a beautiful display of unity — students, families, workers, young and old coming together to fight to preserve jobs and communities.

These rallies serve as a reminder that our country was built on the backs of workers and the middle class, and unions have played a leading role in our country’s history.

Unions didn’t bankrupt Maine. The recession, brought about by Wall Street recklessness and CEO greed, caused our financial problems.

But eliminating unions, which is what the “right to work for less” bill will do, will enable employers to drive down wages, taking money out of our pockets and our local economies.

Who benefits from that? Surely not Maine’s working families or our economy. What matters most is that we all work together to restore our economy and create jobs that put people back to work, not wreck the good, middle-class jobs that support Maine families.

I know that my family can’t afford “right to work for less,” and neither can our economy. Call up your legislators today and tell them to vote “no” on L.D. 788 and L.D. 309.

Brian Wade

Portland

 

Having nearly obliterated the Maine private sector, the crushing weight of government excess has now shifted to bear on those accustomed to public support.

It’s not a pretty sight, and the squeals of the affected will be heard throughout the state.

It’s a simple but painful choice. Either our government crumbles under its own weight or we cut away some of the burden.

Most of us know what has to be done because we have been forced to do it in our own lives. Our government has “been run like nobody’s business” for too long.

Private sector survivors have already done what was necessary. It is time to apply these same efficient methods to government.

Currently, Maine is “beyond broke.” Without needed changes, our grandchildren will be broke also.

Not long ago, individuals with proportionally less debt went to the poor farm or prison, but some still think more borrowing is the answer. Many of us have lost jobs, retirement savings and property value. Taxes cannot be raised; government costs must match our reduced incomes.

Recognizing what needs to be done, the majority has elected those who have promised to do just that. Let’s get behind these leaders and encourage them to get on with the remedy.

Like the people who had home mortgages they could not afford, Maine will lose public-sector jobs.

For those joining us, I say, “Welcome to the private sector, let’s make it better.”

John Field

Union

 

Copy the Story Link