First Things First

That's the title of an intriguing new song by jazz singer Kathleen Stewart. You can listen to the song, download it, and hear more of her music at her website.

These are the lyrics to the first verse:

Don't spend my grandson's paycheck.
He's only two years old.
With Obama in the White House,
His future's bought and sold.
Stop this immoral spending spree.
Stop assaulting our liberty.
Let me help you comprehend:
It ain't your money to spend.

Today's the day that more than 40 Tea Party protests are being held around the US. (More are planned -- here's a schedule.)

People are pissed.

Not just about the "mortgage bailout" -- that's just the last straw. Before that was the $787-billion crap sandwich they call the "stimulus" package. Before that was multi-billion-dollar bailouts for auto makers and their unions who, quite literally, dug their own financial graves. Before that was the first TARP, a.k.a. "bank bailout." (Yes, Virginia: there will be a TARP II. And probably a Stimulus II.) And, of course, today Obama announced that taxes will need to rise by nearly a trillion dollars to pay for his trillion-dollar wish list.



(And no one's yet talking about his plan to -- let's call it what it is -- socialize the US health-care system. Yet.)

People are getting pissed about a President who can't stop proposing more spending, and a Congress eager to indulge him. They're spending like lunatics; they're way past mortgaging our future. They're mortgaging our grandkids' future.

And it's not merely the money; it's the process by which they're doing it:

What started in its infancy as a ragged coalition of libertarians and Republicans (not noted for getting along very well), waving signs, eating symbolic roast pork and donning false pig snouts, has coalesced into a more sharply-focused declaration of outrage not about the product coming out of Washington, D.C., but about the process. ... The Tea Party movement has rescued a fading vestigial echo of pre-Revolutionary outrage, the acutely distilled frustration that surfaces when the social contract between government and governed is breached.

No legislation without deliberation should become the rallying cry of conservatives, liberals and moderates alike, but specifically for opponents of the sort of measures currently being moved through Congress at warp speed, creating a space for debate is essential. The causes of the current economic downturn are complex. The effects of proposed solutions must be considered before votes are cast. Deliberation should have never become an optional portion of the process, and its priority must be restored if these laws and the government that is enacting them can expect to be given legitimacy. Citizens have the right to organically grapple with issues on the basis of information and reason, rather than fear and false urgency. At the very least, reading the actual legislation prior to passage would ordinarily be considered essential.

Even if we agree that our nation’s economic state is the equivalent of a house engulfed in flame, legislators and voters need to decide with the input of constituents and experts if what they are pointing at their home is a fire hose or a flamethrower.

And, you know, he's right. This monstrosity rocketed through Congress in record time, with Obama browbeating them every day with cries of "We must not delay!" and "This is an emergency!" There were no committee hearings in the House (and, btw, the Republicans were locked out while Nancy Pelosi and Co. wrote the damned thing. Yes, they had no input whatsoever. That's a major reason that none of them voted for it.) The Senate delayed only long enough to gull three Republicans into helping it pass. The House-Senate conference rocketed it through in, literally, the dead of night (again with no GOP help), and then both houses passed it on a Friday.

And then? Obama took a three-day weekend vacation before signing it. Um, sorry; you said it was an emergency, right? Right?

Input from We, the People? Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nichts, nil. Congressional aides reported jammed phone lines, overfull inboxes, and lots and lots of taxpayers saying "WTF?" as the price tag grew like Topsy. There was no debate; hell, our elected 'representatives' didn't even read the thing before they passed it.

So, yeah. People are getting really pissed. And, could you tell? I'm one of them.

Forbes lays out a couple of inconvenient facts about public-sector versus private-sector pensions:

America, in case you hadn't noticed, is dividing into two nations. The 22.5-million-strong public sector (that includes retirees) is growing ever larger, and enjoying ever greater wages and benefits often guaranteed by state constitutions.

In private-sector America your job, assuming you still have one, hangs on the fate of the economy. If your employer ever offered a pension for life, like young officer Goss is receiving, odds are it has stopped doing so, or soon will. Those retirement accounts you scrimped and saved to assemble? Unless they are invested in Treasurys, they aren't doing too well. In private-sector America the math leads to the grim prospect of working longer and living poorer.

In public-sector America things just get better and better. The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector's $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42%. ...

Four in five public-sector workers have lifetime pensions, versus only one in five in the private sector. The difference shifts huge risks from government to private-sector workers.

There are a lot of depressing (if you're a private-sector taxpayer) statistics about the "vast, debilitating burden" this poses to you and to me.

My point isn't to run down public-sector workers. Many, like the police officer who leads the article, do good work and they deserve to be compensated accordingly.

The problem is that their compensation is guaranteed by us, and our pensions -- if we even have one -- have taken a huge hit this year. No one guarantees our IRAs, 401(k)s, and other retirement programs. You've lost 25% (if you're lucky) to half of your retirement savings. So did Federal and state public-union employees.

The difference between us and them is that we will cover their losses:

We have watched with trepidation as the stock market declines and along with it the value of our retirement accounts. Yet with our personal accounts, it’s our own problem. When it comes to public pensions, it’s the taxpayer’s problem. Underfunded pensions could cut two ways, leading to much higher taxes and/or cuts in government spending.

When (not if) the market recovers, you'll recover some of that; most, if you're lucky. But we will also see our taxes raised to reimburse public employees, most of whom have far more luxurious benefits than you or I have.

This will lead to problems when (not if) our taxes are raised to truly punishing levels -- I'm looking at you, Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class -- to pay for the 'stimulus' crap sandwich as well as those poor public union employees:

Something will have to change. Without a restored boom in stock prices, public pension funds will have a very hard time meeting their obligations. Either governments will have to increase taxes – perhaps dramatically – or force public employees to endure the same risks and potentially anemic returns the rest of us may be up against. Given the size of these funds, and the enormous political power of government workers, this may create one of the major political conflicts of the coming decade.

And guess who's gonna win that fight?

If you're not keen on trying to support both your family and someone else's, it might just be time to get politically involved.