But there seems to be a disconnect among the Havemores who are George W. Bush's support base. This concept that taxes are necessary to provide the funding for governmental activities (including paying those who are paid to act) just doesn't register in them. They only care that they get theirs. As the New York Times editorialized today:
"The Economic Policy Institute analyzed the tax cuts that were linked to an unsuccessful attempt to raise the minimum wage in 2000. Those cuts would have cost $123 billion over 10 years, versus $11.2 billion for the wage increase."
And who benefited from such "relief"? Mostly the tax bracket that includes these "impoverished" judges.
Granted, judges had little professional role in creating this situation. But as governmental employees, they are still affected by this poor fiscal condition of our national government from which they benefited as individuals in other ways. They saw more money from their cut taxes than they are going to see from a raise.
So what could be their solution if they still insist on more compensation than the american taxpayer can provide? The judges should just see to it that the judiciary is outsourced to the private legal jurisprudence firms to which they belong so that they can charge as much as they can without governmental oversight. It's an idea they got from watching daytime TV.
Hey! Outsourcing worked for Halliburton! Look at how well Iraq is going!
Outsourcing could work for the judges as well. They could charge as much as the traffic will bear, and they could name their own prices. Then all they would have to worry about is watching their franchise be offshored to the Wahhabi Mutaween of Saudi Arabia. They have proposed to do something about that large and growing American judicial backlog - for less than our own judges currently charge!
Next Case, Infidel!
Article comments
1 - PeterJ
Forget it Realist, Right now Judges and CEO's from across the land have just covered their ears with both hands and are screaming loud animal noises to block out your drivel.
How could you even think about blocking pay raises for poor souls earning only $165,000. a year? How do you expect them to exist? You must have no heart. Hasn't anyone told you that the minimum wage has soared to a whopping $7.15 an hour? Why that's $286. a week, almost $15,000. a year.
CEO's from across the land are whining, "how are we supposed to justify voting ourselves a $15,000. raise this year if we have to give it to those greedy bastards? They're going to ruin all of my vacations this year, not to mention I won't be able to buy a new Hummer until they're already released to the public. What are my golf buddies going to think?"
Do you believe that incomes across the board will ever be brought into line? I'm not talking about a redistribution of wealth here, I'm talking a redistribution of income.
It's a tired old story, how putting more money into the bottom will rise back to the top, putting more people back to work to accomodate a rapidly growing demand and an increase in white collar positions such as banking, book-keeping,
investment managers and the like, inevitably more money rising to the top so that those poor CEO's will make even more money.
Of course, this will mean that the CEO's and upper management may have to work a bit more, maybe as much as 40 hours more a week, but jeesh, whaddya want? What they want is how it is now. Put in maybe 32 hrs, long expensive lunches, vacations as they please and fantastic pay plans and benefit packages they write themselves. Wouldn't we all.
Now will come the naysayer, defender of Corporate Executives, "What, why? It's uncalled for. If people can't live on $15,000. a year then somethings wrong. They'll just have to cut back on luxuries, like rent, food, drop those expensive insurance policies, for krist sake people, have some heart here."
How to fix this problem? First you have to get past those infamous words; "What problem?"
That's the hard part. The people who make the most money are the ones who decide how much they're going to make. It seems like a conflict with no resolve. Maybe it is.
2 - STM
Can anyone tell me what the actual minimum wage is in the US? I am seeing $15,000 a year here, which can't be right.
There must be another component built into that, surely?
3 - Bliffle
It's all about the privilege and power that proceeds from monopoly. The lawyers unions assure that they have a monopoly on judgeships and the rest follows. A power they always deny to other unions, incidentally.
4 - troll
it's about a system of production with a designed flaw - the (basic and synthetic) principle of maximizing profit consistently applied leads to pockets of concentrated wealth and restrictions on the value of labor...and periodic economic collapse
capitalism like nuclear war is a game that cannot be won...
how about a friendly game of hold'em - ?
5 - Dave Nalle
I have to point out that back in 1969 that $40,000 a year which judges were being paid was comparable to what top-level civil servants in the federal or state government were getting and comparable to other degreed professionals like doctors and lawyers. Today their salary at 4 times that it is substantially lower than many other degreed professionals.
There are two reasons why salaries for judges are high. First, the idea is to reduce their incentive to take bribes. Second, you have to be able to retain the good judges so they don't go back into private practice. A successul attorney of the type likely to be made a judge is easily going to earn more than $500K a year, so paying him a third of that is a hell of a pay cut.
Trying to equate the salaries of judges who get their jobs through additional education and years of practice in law with the jobs of the average worker is ridiculous.
Dave
6 - troll
Dave - the high salary is the bribe...paying judges to protect private property is just another 'cost of production'
7 - Dave Nalle
But the point, troll, is that it is NOT a high salary. The salary Realist (good lord what a misnomer) is complaining about is extraordinarily low for the type of people who become judges.
Dave
8 - IgnatiusReilly
"A successul attorney of the type likely to be made a judge is easily going to earn more than $500K a year, so paying him a third of that is a hell of a pay cut."
If you compare the hours and workload a lawyer and judge have, the pay cut is not as extreme as you make it.
Plus, a person's character and not their pay scale is what affects bribes.
9 - Dave Nalle
From what I've seen judges have a pretty heavy workload, but I'm sure there's a lot less pressure on them than on lawyers who have actual clients. Nonetheless the argument about salaries being too high remains ridiculous.
I'm with you on bribes in general. It's certainly mostly a character issue. but putting financial pressure on them to test their character doesn't seem like a great idea.
Dave