Govt Pink Slips

There is a lot of talk over the waves of fed govt pink slips being shipped out. I feel for anyone who loses their job, but at the same time, it's a fact of life for many people. Anyone working at any job runs the risk of losing it one day. It should not be considered a 'given' that just because you have a govt job, you are immune to the facts of life. I have read countless complaints on friends' and family's facebook accounts and email about this, and shouting about Harper being a conman, hateful spiteful PM, etc. But let's consider a few examples of how the monster that the govt has become, must be tamed if we have any hope of getting out of this economic mess with only a few bumps and bruises....

First off, when the govt increases spending, say through increases in benefits, wages, or job positions within the govt, services to the user (joe taxpayer) decrease or the user-fees increase. That is a 'given' for sure, and evidence is all around us every day. Increase in spending = decrease in services/increase in cost. Easy as pie to figure out. And there are also examples out there of how running something more efficiently can also lead to a decrease in the number of staff required.

One example that stands out in my mind - a cousin's partner got a new job position within the govt. I remember him proclaiming loudly about how his partner did such great work in his first few months there, he helped save the sector a ton of money, streamlined a lot of ideas so they made more sense, and reduced the cost of running that particular sector by a  big chunk. Fast forward 6 months, and the same cousin was complaining and screaming on FB because his partner's two supervisors got pink slips. Hmmm... gee... could it have been BECAUSE his partner did such a great job, it showed that the two supervisors who had been there for almost 20 years had not in fact been worth the money spent on paying their wages and benefits? Could it be that because his partner was so awesome, the govt saw a chance to save taxpayers over $200,000 a year in wages/benefits for those two supervisors? The partner received a raise for his efforts, but was upset that his bosses got the sack. So how do you want things to play out instead?? Keep on paying ridiculous wages for two men who didnt know their ass from their elbow and did not bother to try to save the system some cash by making things more efficient? Or turf them and ensure that the new ideas were kept in place, by the very person who thought them up and put them into practice, and give him a raise while still saving a boatload of money at the same time? Gee - what would a private business do in that circumstance? It's not hard to see.

If you want to try to sustain benefits for poor families, why continue wasting money in several sectors. If the pink slips for just two men saved over $200,000 a year, imagine how much massive amount of cash is really out there in all of the various departments and sectors that could be saved and better used for the people it's actually supposed to help??? It does not seem like rocket science to figure that out.

I have other examples of how govt increase in spending only leads to a decrease in services or a higher cost for tax payers to pay directly, but I am going to finish that another day.