This comment would make sense if the system had stayed the same. Not sure that's true. In reality, or at least perception, is that government jobs once provided pay and benefits less than the private sector in exchange for almost airtight job security. There might have been grumbling about this security in bad times (say the 70's) but there was general recognition that a person could make more money in the private sector. Now, average pay of government workers is at or above average pay of the taxpayers. Benefits of government workers is WAY above average. This is the general sense from various published media. I can't quote exact figures and I'm sure there'll be tons of studies/research to support either side. So, people are pissed. Most of the private folks have no pension or defined benefit plans. They've watched their 401(k) take a massive hit (though now recovering). On top of that, states have to balance budgets that have also shrunk. Staffing in the public sector must be rational and pay should be market based. If, for example, pay and benefits for teaching is cut below a market level, no one will enter or stay in that profession. They'll paint houses instead. If the state or school districts can't attract worthwhile candidates for the pay offered, it'll have to go up. But we're nowhere near that point. The biggest risk in all of this is the municipal bond market - believe it or not. Serious people are talking about allowing states to go bankrupt. If that happens, stuff like this bill will become instantly irrelevant since, in bankruptcy, union contracts and pension obligations effectively go up in smoke. The states, and possibly the US government would no longer be able to access financial markets and that's very, very bad. Over the years, the pendulum has swung too far one way. It's gaining a lot of momentum going the other way now. It'd be nice if it settled in the middle soon, but I don't think it's gonna work out that way.