The pension gap
Well, part of that deal is delayed pay, because the public sector pays a great deal less. Without this, you&#x27;re going to get menial and do-littles in public service. ... Which the more I think about it, perhaps is the reason why they want to, so the Republicans can look at their bad performance and cut funds further. (Don&#x27;t get me wrong, Democrats seems to like throwing money down holes for populous programs, which have their own set of regressive issues. I&#x27;m much for UBI, and scientific testing of laws and programs to determine if the benefit is actually helping. If not, eliminate and move it to help more, better.)<p>If you cut funds by what you can, and then blame them for bad performance, you can &quot;punish them&quot; with less money, getting even worse. Wash, rinse, repeat, until that program is effectively dead. We&#x27;re seeing it in the schools right now, with &quot;No Child Left Behind&quot; and the similar takes across the country with it. Inner city schools have bad performance, primarily because of bad home life, poverty, lack of food and resources... But because they do bad for tests, they get less funds.<p>I always think, what would our system look like if we adequately funded our programs? Would the BMV be such a cesspool? Not hardly. Would dealing with government office be peachy? Well, no. But they would have quick serving times and adequate material and time response in larger issues. Instead, what I hear is &quot;They&#x27;re bad, so lets cut funding.&quot; which exasperates the problem by now cutting personnel, time, and physical resources.