Tucked away in a side column of an early August issue of the Wall Street Journal, in the Money & Investing section, was an article heralding Rhode Island's new law "that places bondholders ahead of other creditors."
In particular, the well-publicized case of Central Falls will now see bondholders receive their entire amount due of $635,000. Retirees, however, may not fare so well as the town filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9.
The Journal piece explained,
"State officials and lawmakers say the law is needed to lure investors to bonds that will be sold by other Rhode Island municipalities. Without the law, future bond deals in Rhode Island likely would need to carry higher interest rates in order to entice potential buyers scared by the Central Falls bankruptcy filing."
The Rhode Island law is reported to be the first among the 50 states, and, if imitated, might reduce the bankruptcies forecast by analysts such as Meredith Whitney, as municipalities maintained access to bond markets to help them deal with near-term funding problems.
It's nice to see at least one state do the right thing and protect bondholders from elected officials seeking an easy way out that seems to let voters/taxpayers off the hook for their representatives' financial mistakes.
Showing posts with label States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label States. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Ignore Massachusetts' RomneyCare- Vermont Goes Full Speed Ahead On Single-Payer Healthcare
You'd think that Massachusetts' travails with RomneyCare would cause any other state to think twice before attempting to move to a more government-run health care sector.
So it was surprising to read in an edition of the Wall Street Journal last week that Vermont
"is moving one step closer to a goal of its Democratic governor: a state-run health plan that would insure most of its 625,000 residents."
Well, first, it is Vermont. The only state, I believe, to send an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, to the US Senate.
But somehow, single-payer health care in the land of Ethan Alan's Green Mountain Boys seems, well, unpatriotic. And at odds with the idea of rugged individuals out in the hills for which the state is named.
Alas, that was then. Now it's government medical care for all.
The Journal article provides anecdotes describing various parties' reactions to the governor's plan.
"Darcie Johnston, founder of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom...says a single payer-style system would usher in the largest tax increase in the state's history. "It hasn't worked in multiple countries where it's been tried," she said."
"In liberal-leaning Vermont, even Republicans in the state legislature are open to the idea of emulating a single-payer system, though they quibble with how it is being set up."
"Instead of paying premiums, employers and workers likely would subsidize the plan through taxes. Gov. Shumlin says the administrative simplification of having one payer would save the state $500 million a year."
According to the Journal, about 7%, or slightly less than 44,000 of Vermont's residents currently lack health care. Apparently just giving them tax credits or vouchers with which to buy health insurance is a non-starter for Vermont's state legislators and governor.
Better, instead, to emulate Massachusetts, drive medical care providers out of the state with lower reimbursements and bureaucratic oversight and care allocation, while experiencing soaring state spending on the experiment.
What's that old line about insanity- trying the same thing over and over, while expecting different results?
So it was surprising to read in an edition of the Wall Street Journal last week that Vermont
"is moving one step closer to a goal of its Democratic governor: a state-run health plan that would insure most of its 625,000 residents."
Well, first, it is Vermont. The only state, I believe, to send an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, to the US Senate.
But somehow, single-payer health care in the land of Ethan Alan's Green Mountain Boys seems, well, unpatriotic. And at odds with the idea of rugged individuals out in the hills for which the state is named.
Alas, that was then. Now it's government medical care for all.
The Journal article provides anecdotes describing various parties' reactions to the governor's plan.
"Darcie Johnston, founder of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom...says a single payer-style system would usher in the largest tax increase in the state's history. "It hasn't worked in multiple countries where it's been tried," she said."
"In liberal-leaning Vermont, even Republicans in the state legislature are open to the idea of emulating a single-payer system, though they quibble with how it is being set up."
"Instead of paying premiums, employers and workers likely would subsidize the plan through taxes. Gov. Shumlin says the administrative simplification of having one payer would save the state $500 million a year."
According to the Journal, about 7%, or slightly less than 44,000 of Vermont's residents currently lack health care. Apparently just giving them tax credits or vouchers with which to buy health insurance is a non-starter for Vermont's state legislators and governor.
Better, instead, to emulate Massachusetts, drive medical care providers out of the state with lower reimbursements and bureaucratic oversight and care allocation, while experiencing soaring state spending on the experiment.
What's that old line about insanity- trying the same thing over and over, while expecting different results?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Why Public Sector Unions Are Different Than Private Sector Unions- Part 2
Last Friday I wrote this post, which I intended to be fairly comprehensive. But, more recently, I wrote this post on my companion business blog, and realized, as I composed it, that I omitted an important dimension of the public-private sector union differences in that first post.
It became apparent when I wrote this in the more recent post,
"With the rise of hostile takeovers and raiders taking their targets private, or into Chapter 11, many more businessmen learned about the PBGC. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is the federal agency which is charged with administering the failed, under-funded pensions of bankrupt firms.
The truth is, the private sector has seen, for some thirty years, a series of sectors experience bankruptcies which dumped underfunded pension plans onto the PBGC. At the same time, many other companies switched to defined-contribution plans, terminating their defined-benefit plans and putting the resulting lump sum into the former.
In short, private industry has learned, over the past three decades, that the defined-benefit pensions are, for the most part, illusory and unworkable.
What's happening now is that public sector employees are discovering the same truth. The major difference, however, is that because state and local governments foolishly agreed to these plans, the public sector unions have, as a counterparty, an entity that cannot, as easily as a private sector company, declare bankruptcy and subsequently renegotiate the pension obligations."
From a political perspective, that last paragraph is a gross understatement.
In past decades, when steel, railroad, airline and other heavily-unionized firms finally buckled under the weight of pension and labor costs, they filed for bankruptcy. Pension plans went to the PBGC funded as was.
Simply put, contracts between parties became settled, in breach, in bankruptcy courts. If unions and their members foolishly pushed too hard on a company and helped it become uncompetitive and, ultimately, unprofitable, then they bore the consequences in the form of unmet financial obligations.
Companies are born, and die. Relying on a private enterprise for long term financial obligations is, at its root, risky business.
But making your employment, pension and health care contract with a town, city, county or state is a different matter. Having it written into a state's constitution? You're in clover.
That's why public sector union rights such as collective bargaining are so pernicious and dangerous. When a private company goes bankrupt, it's not news.
But we bridle at towns and states filing for bankruptcy. Cloaking financial promises in the authority of local or state government means that your counterparty risk is much lower than if your employer is a private entity.
I don't know if AFSCME, NEA and SEIU leaders fully understood this thirty years ago, but by the time steelworkers were losing their pension and healthcare benefits, I'm pretty sure they did. Then it was full speed ahead.
Because when they combined the now-commonly understood virtuous- for union leaders- cycle of having state and local government deduct union dues from paychecks and pay them directly to union bosses, who then funded election campaigns of union- and government-spending-friendly candidates, who then created more government (union) jobs with this special counterparty status, it was organized labor heaven.
Notice that nobody is removing the right of a union to collectively bargain on wages. What the Midwestern Republican governors and legislatures want to remove is collective bargaining on work rules and the non-wage and benefit terms which add so much to the cost of public sector administration. For example, Ohio Governor John Kasich noted that a town had to terminate 27 lower-ranked policemen in order to fire a sargeant.
So, take a step back and look at how public sector unions are different in this regard. They don't negotiate with a counterparty which, when overburdened with the onerous costs of the public sector unions' demands, can and will easily just vanish, leaving the union employees out of pocket. No, they are dealing with governmental entities which either can't, or can only with great difficulty declare bankruptcy.
It's a very special situation in which the union and its employees bear very little risk for pushing their demands to the extreme, without a logical counterweight to stop them.
That's why we need to eliminate collective bargaining powers- they aren't rights in the first place- for all public sector union employees.
It became apparent when I wrote this in the more recent post,
"With the rise of hostile takeovers and raiders taking their targets private, or into Chapter 11, many more businessmen learned about the PBGC. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is the federal agency which is charged with administering the failed, under-funded pensions of bankrupt firms.
The truth is, the private sector has seen, for some thirty years, a series of sectors experience bankruptcies which dumped underfunded pension plans onto the PBGC. At the same time, many other companies switched to defined-contribution plans, terminating their defined-benefit plans and putting the resulting lump sum into the former.
In short, private industry has learned, over the past three decades, that the defined-benefit pensions are, for the most part, illusory and unworkable.
What's happening now is that public sector employees are discovering the same truth. The major difference, however, is that because state and local governments foolishly agreed to these plans, the public sector unions have, as a counterparty, an entity that cannot, as easily as a private sector company, declare bankruptcy and subsequently renegotiate the pension obligations."
From a political perspective, that last paragraph is a gross understatement.
In past decades, when steel, railroad, airline and other heavily-unionized firms finally buckled under the weight of pension and labor costs, they filed for bankruptcy. Pension plans went to the PBGC funded as was.
Simply put, contracts between parties became settled, in breach, in bankruptcy courts. If unions and their members foolishly pushed too hard on a company and helped it become uncompetitive and, ultimately, unprofitable, then they bore the consequences in the form of unmet financial obligations.
Companies are born, and die. Relying on a private enterprise for long term financial obligations is, at its root, risky business.
But making your employment, pension and health care contract with a town, city, county or state is a different matter. Having it written into a state's constitution? You're in clover.
That's why public sector union rights such as collective bargaining are so pernicious and dangerous. When a private company goes bankrupt, it's not news.
But we bridle at towns and states filing for bankruptcy. Cloaking financial promises in the authority of local or state government means that your counterparty risk is much lower than if your employer is a private entity.
I don't know if AFSCME, NEA and SEIU leaders fully understood this thirty years ago, but by the time steelworkers were losing their pension and healthcare benefits, I'm pretty sure they did. Then it was full speed ahead.
Because when they combined the now-commonly understood virtuous- for union leaders- cycle of having state and local government deduct union dues from paychecks and pay them directly to union bosses, who then funded election campaigns of union- and government-spending-friendly candidates, who then created more government (union) jobs with this special counterparty status, it was organized labor heaven.
Notice that nobody is removing the right of a union to collectively bargain on wages. What the Midwestern Republican governors and legislatures want to remove is collective bargaining on work rules and the non-wage and benefit terms which add so much to the cost of public sector administration. For example, Ohio Governor John Kasich noted that a town had to terminate 27 lower-ranked policemen in order to fire a sargeant.
So, take a step back and look at how public sector unions are different in this regard. They don't negotiate with a counterparty which, when overburdened with the onerous costs of the public sector unions' demands, can and will easily just vanish, leaving the union employees out of pocket. No, they are dealing with governmental entities which either can't, or can only with great difficulty declare bankruptcy.
It's a very special situation in which the union and its employees bear very little risk for pushing their demands to the extreme, without a logical counterweight to stop them.
That's why we need to eliminate collective bargaining powers- they aren't rights in the first place- for all public sector union employees.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Why Public Sector Unions Are Different Than Private Sector Unions
As Wisconsin and Ohio's GOP-controlled state legislatures respond to their governors' calls to pass bills which will remove collective bargaining rights from various public sector unions, Wonderboy and others on the far left, as well as union leaders and their members claim that it's union busting. That it's unfair.
I think it's disingenuous for governors Walker and Kasich to deny that they are targeting public sector unions. They aren't technically trying to break the unions, but they are certainly aiming to weaken the unions grips on the public purse.
Public sector unions are different than private sector ones. Perhaps more by degree than by nature, but that's in effect what many states are now about to discern.
Private sector unions negotiate with profit-making companies. When the companies strike unwise deals with their unions, then, in time, the companies' fortunes suffer and, shortly thereafter, so do the union members. One only has to consider the fate of railroads, airlines, steel and automakers in the US to see how union excess, combined with management stupidity, results in pain and suffering for the workers and shareholders.
In the private sector, Schumpeterian dynamics and Ricardian trade economics eventually shift economic activity, business and jobs to lower-wage, comparatively higher-productivity regions or countries.
Thus, in the private sector, global and regional competitive forces serve to curb union excesses for compensation and work rules which disadvantage the companies with which they bargain.
This natural competitive force is absent in the state and local government sector. Add to this the transient, largely semi-professional or amateur nature of most elected officials in state and local governments, and you have a recipe for public sector unions representing firemen, police, teachers and other civil service workers to demand- and receive- excessive compensation, benefits, work rules and other rights without a clear countervailing force.
In fact, the only countervailing forces are taxes and the amount and interest rates on state and local government borrowing. The former becomes a political football at each election, while the latter is poorly understood by the average voter. It takes a lot of effort for the average voter to connect the dots between his rising taxes and the lush, above-private-sector average compensation and benefits granted to unionized public sector workers.
You also don't have much choice in the matter of dodging this liability, short of moving to another locale or state. Which, when taxes rise too much, actually happens.
There's another difference, as well.
Suppose your neighbor works for Coca-Cola. Maybe he drives a delivery truck, or is a regional manager.
Do you worry about his job and well-being when you order a Pepsi or some other non-Coke beverage? Probably not.
If Coca-Cola has to cut wages or benefits, do you feel individually responsible? Again, probably not.
But suppose your neighbor works in the county or town clerk's office. Or is a policeman, teacher or fireman. Suddenly, there's an unsettling personal connection between your taxes, your personal share of the local or state government's spending and deficits, and your neighbor's standard of living.
If you vote for a candidate who promises to rein in spending, cut teacher pay, or maybe even retract their right to bargain collectively, you may feel that you are now personally responsible for the children of your neighbor, a public sector worker, being less well-off.
Frankly, it's not fair. It's not fair to the average voter/taxpayer that they are made to feel responsible for funding the lifestyle of a neighbor or friend who lives off the public trough.
That's one reason why I favor making every public sector job that can be, be outsourced to private sector companies via contract. It removes the human face from public sector jobs.
We all make career choices. If I work at Coca-Cola, does that mean I should take it as a personal insult that any of my neighbors or friends don't buy several cases of Coke products each week? They aren't responsible for my career choices- I am.
So why should I feel responsible when a fireman, policeman, town administrator or teacher is the object of expense reductions by state or local government? Why should I feel some personal guilt about my child's ability to read because someone I know chose to enter the teaching profession and is now experiencing lower compensation or work rule changes due to an inability of the local government to fund the existing union agreements?
Public sector unions are also different for the very reason LaGuardia and FDR originally declined to allow them, i.e., they provide critical services for government which cannot be safely interdicted. Thus, allowing them to possibly strike and suspend key government functions such as police and fire protection, schooling, or garbage collection, is unwise and unfair. If these functions were contracted out to private sector firms, then this wouldn't be a risk.
Simply put, why should some small group of our neighbors be allowed special privileges regarding their ability to legally extort us, through state and local governments, just because they happen to work for us in those governments? Isn't that totally backwards?
Yes, it is. Where they work shouldn't have any impact on how they make us feel about their wages, benefits or work rules.
In fact, because government workers serve all citizens, that's precisely why as many of them as possible should be private company employees- so we don't come to view their personal financial fortunes as our responsibilities as taxpayers and citizens.
I think it's disingenuous for governors Walker and Kasich to deny that they are targeting public sector unions. They aren't technically trying to break the unions, but they are certainly aiming to weaken the unions grips on the public purse.
Public sector unions are different than private sector ones. Perhaps more by degree than by nature, but that's in effect what many states are now about to discern.
Private sector unions negotiate with profit-making companies. When the companies strike unwise deals with their unions, then, in time, the companies' fortunes suffer and, shortly thereafter, so do the union members. One only has to consider the fate of railroads, airlines, steel and automakers in the US to see how union excess, combined with management stupidity, results in pain and suffering for the workers and shareholders.
In the private sector, Schumpeterian dynamics and Ricardian trade economics eventually shift economic activity, business and jobs to lower-wage, comparatively higher-productivity regions or countries.
Thus, in the private sector, global and regional competitive forces serve to curb union excesses for compensation and work rules which disadvantage the companies with which they bargain.
This natural competitive force is absent in the state and local government sector. Add to this the transient, largely semi-professional or amateur nature of most elected officials in state and local governments, and you have a recipe for public sector unions representing firemen, police, teachers and other civil service workers to demand- and receive- excessive compensation, benefits, work rules and other rights without a clear countervailing force.
In fact, the only countervailing forces are taxes and the amount and interest rates on state and local government borrowing. The former becomes a political football at each election, while the latter is poorly understood by the average voter. It takes a lot of effort for the average voter to connect the dots between his rising taxes and the lush, above-private-sector average compensation and benefits granted to unionized public sector workers.
You also don't have much choice in the matter of dodging this liability, short of moving to another locale or state. Which, when taxes rise too much, actually happens.
There's another difference, as well.
Suppose your neighbor works for Coca-Cola. Maybe he drives a delivery truck, or is a regional manager.
Do you worry about his job and well-being when you order a Pepsi or some other non-Coke beverage? Probably not.
If Coca-Cola has to cut wages or benefits, do you feel individually responsible? Again, probably not.
But suppose your neighbor works in the county or town clerk's office. Or is a policeman, teacher or fireman. Suddenly, there's an unsettling personal connection between your taxes, your personal share of the local or state government's spending and deficits, and your neighbor's standard of living.
If you vote for a candidate who promises to rein in spending, cut teacher pay, or maybe even retract their right to bargain collectively, you may feel that you are now personally responsible for the children of your neighbor, a public sector worker, being less well-off.
Frankly, it's not fair. It's not fair to the average voter/taxpayer that they are made to feel responsible for funding the lifestyle of a neighbor or friend who lives off the public trough.
That's one reason why I favor making every public sector job that can be, be outsourced to private sector companies via contract. It removes the human face from public sector jobs.
We all make career choices. If I work at Coca-Cola, does that mean I should take it as a personal insult that any of my neighbors or friends don't buy several cases of Coke products each week? They aren't responsible for my career choices- I am.
So why should I feel responsible when a fireman, policeman, town administrator or teacher is the object of expense reductions by state or local government? Why should I feel some personal guilt about my child's ability to read because someone I know chose to enter the teaching profession and is now experiencing lower compensation or work rule changes due to an inability of the local government to fund the existing union agreements?
Public sector unions are also different for the very reason LaGuardia and FDR originally declined to allow them, i.e., they provide critical services for government which cannot be safely interdicted. Thus, allowing them to possibly strike and suspend key government functions such as police and fire protection, schooling, or garbage collection, is unwise and unfair. If these functions were contracted out to private sector firms, then this wouldn't be a risk.
Simply put, why should some small group of our neighbors be allowed special privileges regarding their ability to legally extort us, through state and local governments, just because they happen to work for us in those governments? Isn't that totally backwards?
Yes, it is. Where they work shouldn't have any impact on how they make us feel about their wages, benefits or work rules.
In fact, because government workers serve all citizens, that's precisely why as many of them as possible should be private company employees- so we don't come to view their personal financial fortunes as our responsibilities as taxpayers and citizens.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Larger View of Wisconsin's Teacher's Protests
This post written last week concerned the Wisconsin's teachers' protests. Afterwards, on Friday evening, I saw Frank Luntz give a report on one of the Fox News evening programs explaining that this was about the dumbest thing a municipal union could be doing right now.
What may not have sunk in sufficiently to the rest of us is that parents across Wisconsin, but I believe especially in Milwaukee, have seen their public schools closed as the teachers simply walked off the job to go protest at the state capitol building in Madison. This is the essence of why local, state and the federal government didn't allow unionization of and collective bargaining for public sector workers for so long.
John Fund wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial this weekend entitled What's at Stake in Wisconsin's Budget Battle, has noted,
"The Badger State became the first to pass a worker-compensation program in 1911, as well as the first to create unemployment compensation in 1932. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—the chief national union representing non-federal public employees—was founded in Madison in 1936. And in 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to grant public employees collective-bargaining rights, which influenced President John F. Kennedy's decision to grant federal employees the right to join unions three years later."
If you have lived in the Midwest, as I did growing up, you know that Wisconsin and Minnesota are the two very unusual states in the region. The latter has had a quasi-socialist party named the Democratic Farmer Labor Party since, I would guess, the dawn of the Progressive Era. Wisconsin continues to echo the LaFollette tradition of ultra-liberalism. So in that sense, these Wisconsin demonstrations by teachers doesn't surprise me.
However, I'm wondering if, by now, the rest of the populace hasn't grown sick and tired of being extorted by the municipal workers and their friends in the state's Democratic Party. To see why this may be so, here's another passage from Fund's piece,
"The real assault this week was led by Organizing for America, the successor to President's Obama's 2008 campaign organization. It helped fill buses of protesters who flooded the state capital of Madison and ran 15 phone banks urging people to call state legislators.
Mr. Walker's proposals are hardly revolutionary. Facing a $137 million budget deficit, he has decided to try to avoid laying off 5,500 state workers by proposing that they contribute 5.8% of their income towards their pensions and 12.6% towards health insurance. That's roughly the national average for public pension payments, and it is less than half the national average of what government workers contribute to health care. Mr. Walker also wants to limit the power of public-employee unions to negotiate contracts and work rules—something that 24 states already limit or ban.
Mr. Walker's argument—that public workers shouldn't be living high off the hog at the expense of taxpayers—is being made in other states facing budget crises. But the left observed the impact of the tea party last year and seems determined to unleash a more aggressive version of its own by teaming up with union allies. Organizing for America is already coordinating protests against proposed reforms in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri."
Thanks to research which became widely-circulated in the past two years, anyone with a brain who wants to know, knows that average public sector wages are now about 25% higher than those in the private sector, while they pay much less for better health and pension benefits.
This sort of outrageous compensation situation should, once and for all, turn voters against the notion that the public sector should be allowed to organize. Or that we should have so many functions even staffed by public sector workers, as opposed to simply bidding out contracts for the services to the private sector.
The sense of denial on the part of these public sector unions is incredible. For example, I see web ads by NJ's teachers unions accusing Christie's budget cuts of harming children. They conveniently forget or omit that the entire state is making sacrifices. It's not like any one part of the state's budget can be magically increased or left alone. Further, we're all paying for decades of political lies by both parties and ever-more generous settlements with the state's public sector unions. These promises will simply be unaffordable. People will move to escape higher taxes necessary to fulfill these extravagant contracts.
I suspect that many Wisconsinians are also much more upset than the liberal media will let us see over their Democratic state senators fleeing to Illinois to avoid doing their jobs to vote on, if against, Scott Walker's proposed bill.
How hard is it for state officials and, for that matter, local and federal ones, too, to make a best offer as follows: public sector employees of all sorts must make, as cash wages, pensions and health care benefits, no more than the average of private sector workers for each category, excluding these public workers? And that, furthermore, all benefits will be defined-contribution, not defined benefits, so that the annual state budget will pay all the compensation, with no out-year liabilities?
We have to get to a point where government employees are paid, totally, from current-year budgets, and no more than the average of similar workers in the private sector. No more subsidizing public sector workers with more generous compensation than the average taxpayer gets.
Between Wonderboy's cynical political calculations in his bloated budget for 2012, and teachers' unions in several states walking off the job and crying for special treatment and exemptions from financial pain amidst state budget deficits, I believe voters are finally getting the message: politicians of both parties in the federal and many state governments have lied and hidden real costs for far too long. Many politicians have looked on their jobs as permanent careers, and have used public sector union funding to help retain their jobs and recycle the money back to those employees in the form of overly-generous compensation agreements.
I suspect the tide is turning for good. Wisconsin's teachers seem to have roughly the same sense of the situation as do Wonderboy and the House Democrats. So it's timely they are demonstrating their tin ears on the subject of spending, taxes, entitlement spending and public sector unions just in time for the 2102 electoral cycle.
What may not have sunk in sufficiently to the rest of us is that parents across Wisconsin, but I believe especially in Milwaukee, have seen their public schools closed as the teachers simply walked off the job to go protest at the state capitol building in Madison. This is the essence of why local, state and the federal government didn't allow unionization of and collective bargaining for public sector workers for so long.
John Fund wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial this weekend entitled What's at Stake in Wisconsin's Budget Battle, has noted,
"The Badger State became the first to pass a worker-compensation program in 1911, as well as the first to create unemployment compensation in 1932. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—the chief national union representing non-federal public employees—was founded in Madison in 1936. And in 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to grant public employees collective-bargaining rights, which influenced President John F. Kennedy's decision to grant federal employees the right to join unions three years later."
If you have lived in the Midwest, as I did growing up, you know that Wisconsin and Minnesota are the two very unusual states in the region. The latter has had a quasi-socialist party named the Democratic Farmer Labor Party since, I would guess, the dawn of the Progressive Era. Wisconsin continues to echo the LaFollette tradition of ultra-liberalism. So in that sense, these Wisconsin demonstrations by teachers doesn't surprise me.
However, I'm wondering if, by now, the rest of the populace hasn't grown sick and tired of being extorted by the municipal workers and their friends in the state's Democratic Party. To see why this may be so, here's another passage from Fund's piece,
"The real assault this week was led by Organizing for America, the successor to President's Obama's 2008 campaign organization. It helped fill buses of protesters who flooded the state capital of Madison and ran 15 phone banks urging people to call state legislators.
Mr. Walker's proposals are hardly revolutionary. Facing a $137 million budget deficit, he has decided to try to avoid laying off 5,500 state workers by proposing that they contribute 5.8% of their income towards their pensions and 12.6% towards health insurance. That's roughly the national average for public pension payments, and it is less than half the national average of what government workers contribute to health care. Mr. Walker also wants to limit the power of public-employee unions to negotiate contracts and work rules—something that 24 states already limit or ban.
Mr. Walker's argument—that public workers shouldn't be living high off the hog at the expense of taxpayers—is being made in other states facing budget crises. But the left observed the impact of the tea party last year and seems determined to unleash a more aggressive version of its own by teaming up with union allies. Organizing for America is already coordinating protests against proposed reforms in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri."
Thanks to research which became widely-circulated in the past two years, anyone with a brain who wants to know, knows that average public sector wages are now about 25% higher than those in the private sector, while they pay much less for better health and pension benefits.
This sort of outrageous compensation situation should, once and for all, turn voters against the notion that the public sector should be allowed to organize. Or that we should have so many functions even staffed by public sector workers, as opposed to simply bidding out contracts for the services to the private sector.
The sense of denial on the part of these public sector unions is incredible. For example, I see web ads by NJ's teachers unions accusing Christie's budget cuts of harming children. They conveniently forget or omit that the entire state is making sacrifices. It's not like any one part of the state's budget can be magically increased or left alone. Further, we're all paying for decades of political lies by both parties and ever-more generous settlements with the state's public sector unions. These promises will simply be unaffordable. People will move to escape higher taxes necessary to fulfill these extravagant contracts.
I suspect that many Wisconsinians are also much more upset than the liberal media will let us see over their Democratic state senators fleeing to Illinois to avoid doing their jobs to vote on, if against, Scott Walker's proposed bill.
How hard is it for state officials and, for that matter, local and federal ones, too, to make a best offer as follows: public sector employees of all sorts must make, as cash wages, pensions and health care benefits, no more than the average of private sector workers for each category, excluding these public workers? And that, furthermore, all benefits will be defined-contribution, not defined benefits, so that the annual state budget will pay all the compensation, with no out-year liabilities?
We have to get to a point where government employees are paid, totally, from current-year budgets, and no more than the average of similar workers in the private sector. No more subsidizing public sector workers with more generous compensation than the average taxpayer gets.
Between Wonderboy's cynical political calculations in his bloated budget for 2012, and teachers' unions in several states walking off the job and crying for special treatment and exemptions from financial pain amidst state budget deficits, I believe voters are finally getting the message: politicians of both parties in the federal and many state governments have lied and hidden real costs for far too long. Many politicians have looked on their jobs as permanent careers, and have used public sector union funding to help retain their jobs and recycle the money back to those employees in the form of overly-generous compensation agreements.
I suspect the tide is turning for good. Wisconsin's teachers seem to have roughly the same sense of the situation as do Wonderboy and the House Democrats. So it's timely they are demonstrating their tin ears on the subject of spending, taxes, entitlement spending and public sector unions just in time for the 2102 electoral cycle.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Municipal Unions Against State Budget Cuts & Reforms
It's been a big week for Republican governors who are trying to rein in budgets and raise public awareness concerning the special pension and benefit deals public sector unions have received. Here are two videos of Chris Christie speaking at the American Enterprise Institute.
Christie discussing being 'vaporized' for touching the third rail of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid insolvency as currently designed and operated....
Christie discussing being 'vaporized' for touching the third rail of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid insolvency as currently designed and operated....
Then we have newly-elected Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker moving decisively to have the now Republican-controlled legislature enact a law to revoke collective bargaining for non-wage issues by public sector unions, except for police and firemen, and require said employees to pay more equitable contributions for pension and healthcare benefits.
The result has been teachers walking out and converging on Walker's home. Plus the Wisconsin senate Democrats decamping outside the state to frustrate the quorum required to pass the law. And, to complete the comedy, Wonderboy stating that Walker is engaging in police and fire 'union busting,' despite the fact that those two unions aren't involved.
Hilariously, liberals are accusing Walker and the legislature of being undemocratic, comparing the union's role to that of Egyptian protesters. They overlook the fact that Walker and the legislature are duly elected. That's the process that has credibility and standing. Not Democratic state senators running away in an attempt to avoid facing reality.
Do you think those legislators will be re-elected for that behavior?
Hilariously, liberals are accusing Walker and the legislature of being undemocratic, comparing the union's role to that of Egyptian protesters. They overlook the fact that Walker and the legislature are duly elected. That's the process that has credibility and standing. Not Democratic state senators running away in an attempt to avoid facing reality.
Do you think those legislators will be re-elected for that behavior?
Even the political reporter on CNBC, Red John Harwood, and, appearing on CNBC, NBC's liberal Meet The Press host, David Gregory, both admitted that it's fairly clear that these actions are necessary if states are to avoid bankruptcy. Harwood said it's simply a matter of whether or not the political will now exists among voters to enforce the cuts and required pain on public union members in order to end the excesses.
What strikes me as notable is the tin ear Wonderboy is showing on this issue. It's becoming more apparent with each new crisis that he is less of an accomplished politician, and more of a sort of political sprinter. Good over a short course, but fades in the long distances. He just doesn't seem to realize that governing, especially now, in a too-long profligate US, requires honesty and making tough, unpopular choices. Not simply demonizing a governor who is trying to balance a state budget in the face of coddled municipal union employees.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
States Enforcement of ObamaCare
Mitch Daniels, current governor of Indiana, wrote an editorial this week in the Wall Street Journal entitled An ObamaCare Appeal From the States.
Daniels, a Republican, wrote of several things he would like to have changed in the new health care legislation, suggesting that, without state participation in key areas, the federal government will founder.
For example, he noted that the government, in the absence of a "majority of states" participating, was unable to effectively create health care insurance exchanges for "high-cost, existing conditions." HHS had to do it. Daniels wrote,
"it went poorly, with costs far above predictions and only a tiny fraction of the expected population signing up."
So Daniels theorizes that, if enough states band together to refuse to help the federal government operate and enforce the new law, it simply won't happen. In a sentiment reminiscent of statements on Fox News of former Judge Andrew Napolitano, Daniels notes that the law simply assumed that the states would carry out the federal government's directives for free.
Daniels' editorial suggests to HHS that Indiana will only participate if the federal agency gets independent estimates of the administrative costs and agrees to fully reimburse his state for said costs.
It brings to bear an interesting point, i.e., can the federal government simply require states to spend money to comply with all of the costly provisions of legislation like ObamaCare?
Daniels, a Republican, wrote of several things he would like to have changed in the new health care legislation, suggesting that, without state participation in key areas, the federal government will founder.
For example, he noted that the government, in the absence of a "majority of states" participating, was unable to effectively create health care insurance exchanges for "high-cost, existing conditions." HHS had to do it. Daniels wrote,
"it went poorly, with costs far above predictions and only a tiny fraction of the expected population signing up."
So Daniels theorizes that, if enough states band together to refuse to help the federal government operate and enforce the new law, it simply won't happen. In a sentiment reminiscent of statements on Fox News of former Judge Andrew Napolitano, Daniels notes that the law simply assumed that the states would carry out the federal government's directives for free.
Daniels' editorial suggests to HHS that Indiana will only participate if the federal agency gets independent estimates of the administrative costs and agrees to fully reimburse his state for said costs.
It brings to bear an interesting point, i.e., can the federal government simply require states to spend money to comply with all of the costly provisions of legislation like ObamaCare?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Illinois Commits Economic Harakiri & Raises Tax Rates
It's sad to see my home state of Illinois going so badly wrong in its fiscal policies.
If I recall correctly, the state's top income tax rate rose by 40%, from 3% to 5%. This was done in a lame-duck session by Democratic legislators in an attempt to tax their way to closing a yawning budget deficit.
Reading remarks from the Republican governors of surrounding states like Indiana's Mitch Daniels and Wisconsin's Scott Walker leaves no doubt that Illinois is bound to lose citizens and probably businesses to those two hungrier, lower-tax states. Even Michigan, which has its own troubles, will probably get into the act once it can stabilize its own fiscal mess.
Other pundits have written, aptly, that we're seeing a wonderful example of our nation's federal system at work. Each state may pursue their own approach to government, and Illinois is foolishly raising taxes while its neighboring, redder states lower theirs and explicitly target Illinois business and personal income tax revenues via outward migration.
Still others have noted that even incoming New York Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo is sounding like Ronald Reagan.
So what's with my old home state? How did Richard Ogilvie's prudent and prosperous Illinois become the bloated, indebted shambles we now see?
Simply put, state and municipal unions run wild with the active assistance of the state's Democratic legislators. New Jersey managed to vote in Chris Christie to try to solve a similar crisis. In Illinois, they're just reaching for the usual measures- higher taxes. No serious pension reform, no serious spending cuts. Just a bunch of lame duck political hacks squeezing an aging population to pay more tribute to the government workers' unions.
Isn't it amazing that none of this is sticking to Wonderboy yet? After all, what little government experience he had before his two-year introductory tour of the US Senate was in the Illinois legislature. And how will his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, handle Chicago, should he be elected, amidst this fiscal mess?
Some years ago, my late father predicted all this. On a summer trip to visit my parents, for my children's benefit, he spoke at length about the coming fiscal storm. There was a huge pension obligation for government workers, he said, while the state's economy had been hollowed out over the past few decades. Much of central Illinois' economic activity, he contended, had become elder citizens spending on local health care services. Hardly the sort of exportable, growth industry that would sustain a base of younger state citizens for the future.
At least there's the hope that, with the expected failure of Illinois' tax hikes to solve its financial problems, even the state's apparently liberal-leaning voters will eventually replace their state-level politicians with ones who will start slashing union-friendly spending.
If I recall correctly, the state's top income tax rate rose by 40%, from 3% to 5%. This was done in a lame-duck session by Democratic legislators in an attempt to tax their way to closing a yawning budget deficit.
Reading remarks from the Republican governors of surrounding states like Indiana's Mitch Daniels and Wisconsin's Scott Walker leaves no doubt that Illinois is bound to lose citizens and probably businesses to those two hungrier, lower-tax states. Even Michigan, which has its own troubles, will probably get into the act once it can stabilize its own fiscal mess.
Other pundits have written, aptly, that we're seeing a wonderful example of our nation's federal system at work. Each state may pursue their own approach to government, and Illinois is foolishly raising taxes while its neighboring, redder states lower theirs and explicitly target Illinois business and personal income tax revenues via outward migration.
Still others have noted that even incoming New York Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo is sounding like Ronald Reagan.
So what's with my old home state? How did Richard Ogilvie's prudent and prosperous Illinois become the bloated, indebted shambles we now see?
Simply put, state and municipal unions run wild with the active assistance of the state's Democratic legislators. New Jersey managed to vote in Chris Christie to try to solve a similar crisis. In Illinois, they're just reaching for the usual measures- higher taxes. No serious pension reform, no serious spending cuts. Just a bunch of lame duck political hacks squeezing an aging population to pay more tribute to the government workers' unions.
Isn't it amazing that none of this is sticking to Wonderboy yet? After all, what little government experience he had before his two-year introductory tour of the US Senate was in the Illinois legislature. And how will his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, handle Chicago, should he be elected, amidst this fiscal mess?
Some years ago, my late father predicted all this. On a summer trip to visit my parents, for my children's benefit, he spoke at length about the coming fiscal storm. There was a huge pension obligation for government workers, he said, while the state's economy had been hollowed out over the past few decades. Much of central Illinois' economic activity, he contended, had become elder citizens spending on local health care services. Hardly the sort of exportable, growth industry that would sustain a base of younger state citizens for the future.
At least there's the hope that, with the expected failure of Illinois' tax hikes to solve its financial problems, even the state's apparently liberal-leaning voters will eventually replace their state-level politicians with ones who will start slashing union-friendly spending.
Monday, December 27, 2010
More Horrific State Budget Games
The Manhattan Institute's Steven Malanga wrote a chilling editorial in last Friday's Wall Street Journal entitled State House Shell Games.
In it, he detailed the budgetary games US states have played to fool voters while continuing to spend beyond their means. For example, apparently federal funds for upgrading 911 emergency systems is a fairly common source for misallocation of resources. These funds are used for other purposes with seeming impunity.
Then there are cases of states like Arizona mortgaging its government buildings in such a way as to effect a 'sale' which escapes constitutional strictures. Then there's New York State, where, according to Malanga, one-third of the bridge and highway trust fund is being used to pay state debt service.
Essentially, writes Malanga, states are using elaborate shell games to shift funds inappropriately among various special purposes and their general funds, the better to obscure the true indebtedness of said states.
California's Schwarzeneggar promised that $10.9B in deficit bonds issued early in his governorship would be the ticket to his state's budget woes. Instead, the legislature and governor simply went on spending, leaving the state with a current $25B budget shortfall over the next year and a half.
Voters are beginning to notice. Even my liberal Democratic squash partner voiced alarm after seeing Meredith Whitney's recent appearance on CBS' '60 Minutes.' For a guy who never saw a spending program he didn't like, he's truly fearful that some states, like ours, won't be able to fund all of their liabilities.
Seems like the endgame on state budget tricks and deficits, in defiance of notional balanced budget rules, is coming soon.
In it, he detailed the budgetary games US states have played to fool voters while continuing to spend beyond their means. For example, apparently federal funds for upgrading 911 emergency systems is a fairly common source for misallocation of resources. These funds are used for other purposes with seeming impunity.
Then there are cases of states like Arizona mortgaging its government buildings in such a way as to effect a 'sale' which escapes constitutional strictures. Then there's New York State, where, according to Malanga, one-third of the bridge and highway trust fund is being used to pay state debt service.
Essentially, writes Malanga, states are using elaborate shell games to shift funds inappropriately among various special purposes and their general funds, the better to obscure the true indebtedness of said states.
California's Schwarzeneggar promised that $10.9B in deficit bonds issued early in his governorship would be the ticket to his state's budget woes. Instead, the legislature and governor simply went on spending, leaving the state with a current $25B budget shortfall over the next year and a half.
Voters are beginning to notice. Even my liberal Democratic squash partner voiced alarm after seeing Meredith Whitney's recent appearance on CBS' '60 Minutes.' For a guy who never saw a spending program he didn't like, he's truly fearful that some states, like ours, won't be able to fund all of their liabilities.
Seems like the endgame on state budget tricks and deficits, in defiance of notional balanced budget rules, is coming soon.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Capping States' Spending: What Works & What Doesn't
Two weekends ago, the Wall Street Journal published a fascinating piece by Matthew Mitchell, "a research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center," entitled How to Control State Spending.
I wouldn't have given this topic much thought, as I assumed that the states which had passed constitutional amendments or had laws to this effect more or less all took the same path. But that's wrong.
Mitchell writes of failures, like Florida, which used a cap based on "the sum total of residents' income" growth.
In contrast, he writes,
"Another variety of TEL (tax-and-expenditure limitation), which limits spending, according to the sum of inflation plus state population growth, has a better record."
Colorado successfully used this approach and is now "experiencing the country's fastest economic growth between 1995 to 2000."
Mitchell continues by observing,
"Six other states have enacted a TEL like Colorado's. My research shows that- after controlling for other factors, including per capita income and the unemployment rate- this type of TEL reduces state and local budgets by 3%."
He mentions three tools with which Florida, and other states, could improve their control over state spending:
-item-reduction veto
-a supermajority requirement for tax increases
-stronger balanced-budget laws and practices.
What's interesting about Mitchell's work, besides the obvious lesson that some approaches to state spending control work better than others, is the lesson of Federalism.
That is, by allowing the 50 states to vary their approaches to problems, it's possible to observe and discover which approaches work best, and, through work like Mitchell's, allow those to be adopted by all interested states.
Yet another reason for a limited Federal government, and more robust, stronger state governments.
And another reason to repeal Wonderboy's draconian, top-down federal health care legislation, in order to allow continued experimentation with solutions at the state level.
I wouldn't have given this topic much thought, as I assumed that the states which had passed constitutional amendments or had laws to this effect more or less all took the same path. But that's wrong.
Mitchell writes of failures, like Florida, which used a cap based on "the sum total of residents' income" growth.
In contrast, he writes,
"Another variety of TEL (tax-and-expenditure limitation), which limits spending, according to the sum of inflation plus state population growth, has a better record."
Colorado successfully used this approach and is now "experiencing the country's fastest economic growth between 1995 to 2000."
Mitchell continues by observing,
"Six other states have enacted a TEL like Colorado's. My research shows that- after controlling for other factors, including per capita income and the unemployment rate- this type of TEL reduces state and local budgets by 3%."
He mentions three tools with which Florida, and other states, could improve their control over state spending:
-item-reduction veto
-a supermajority requirement for tax increases
-stronger balanced-budget laws and practices.
What's interesting about Mitchell's work, besides the obvious lesson that some approaches to state spending control work better than others, is the lesson of Federalism.
That is, by allowing the 50 states to vary their approaches to problems, it's possible to observe and discover which approaches work best, and, through work like Mitchell's, allow those to be adopted by all interested states.
Yet another reason for a limited Federal government, and more robust, stronger state governments.
And another reason to repeal Wonderboy's draconian, top-down federal health care legislation, in order to allow continued experimentation with solutions at the state level.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Regarding Michigan's State Investments In Battery Producers
Jennifer Granholm, Michigan's governor, was recently on CNBC crowing loudly about how the state has invested in battery makers which chose to locate facilities in Michigan.
Beaming happily and egged on by a typically-clueless Maria Bartiromo, Granholm gushed about how the state had attracted business to the state to create jobs by investing government, which is to say, state taxpayer money, in the companies.
When I heard this, my first thought was,
'How much more corrupt can you get?'
Far from providing a level playing field for industry, Granholm's form of crony capitalism makes the state the heavy-handed goon, with legislative and police powers, which can fend off any legitimate competition from the state's pet investments.
From what I gathered, Granholm's team selected new battery makers as the recipients of the state's capital. In time, it's reasonable that a group of workers skilled in related production and design may develop. Perhaps some of them will have better ideas on how to design and produce similar batteries.
What if a group of them seek to attract capital and set up a new company?
Won't it be in the state's interest to obstruct that? After all, a new competitor to a company in which the state has invested could result in losses, or fewer profits, for the taxpayer-backed firm.
It doesn't take much thought to see how dangerous and potentially corrupt the practice of state's investing in private enterprise can be, does it?
As soon as the state become a partner in a particular business, it has an interest in using its absolute powers to prevent competition from arising, or punishing it if it does.
Rather like, well, the US government owning GM. It has a vested interest in its car producer besting competitors.
It's very disturbing to see this occurring at the state level. And, worse, to see a governor trumpeting it as a positive thing.
Of course, Baritromo never thought to grill Granholm on these issues. If such a question even entered Maria's head, it's likely she chose future access to the governor over doing a thorough, journalistic interview on the topic of Michigan favoring some businesses over others with its investment capital.
It marks just how fascist our economy is becoming. And I use the word literally, not emotionally, i.e., according to this description,
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it."
Granholm's investments in private companies certainly follows this logic, doesn't it? And, having Michigan investment dollars as capital, the companies involved are more prone to suasion by the state on matters of labor, unions, and who knows how many other aspects of the businesses?
It's an entanglement that should never occur in the US, whether at the federal or state level. It boils down to government favoring one or more businesses over others, and then being suspect of using government power to favor its pet investments.
Beaming happily and egged on by a typically-clueless Maria Bartiromo, Granholm gushed about how the state had attracted business to the state to create jobs by investing government, which is to say, state taxpayer money, in the companies.
When I heard this, my first thought was,
'How much more corrupt can you get?'
Far from providing a level playing field for industry, Granholm's form of crony capitalism makes the state the heavy-handed goon, with legislative and police powers, which can fend off any legitimate competition from the state's pet investments.
From what I gathered, Granholm's team selected new battery makers as the recipients of the state's capital. In time, it's reasonable that a group of workers skilled in related production and design may develop. Perhaps some of them will have better ideas on how to design and produce similar batteries.
What if a group of them seek to attract capital and set up a new company?
Won't it be in the state's interest to obstruct that? After all, a new competitor to a company in which the state has invested could result in losses, or fewer profits, for the taxpayer-backed firm.
It doesn't take much thought to see how dangerous and potentially corrupt the practice of state's investing in private enterprise can be, does it?
As soon as the state become a partner in a particular business, it has an interest in using its absolute powers to prevent competition from arising, or punishing it if it does.
Rather like, well, the US government owning GM. It has a vested interest in its car producer besting competitors.
It's very disturbing to see this occurring at the state level. And, worse, to see a governor trumpeting it as a positive thing.
Of course, Baritromo never thought to grill Granholm on these issues. If such a question even entered Maria's head, it's likely she chose future access to the governor over doing a thorough, journalistic interview on the topic of Michigan favoring some businesses over others with its investment capital.
It marks just how fascist our economy is becoming. And I use the word literally, not emotionally, i.e., according to this description,
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it."
Granholm's investments in private companies certainly follows this logic, doesn't it? And, having Michigan investment dollars as capital, the companies involved are more prone to suasion by the state on matters of labor, unions, and who knows how many other aspects of the businesses?
It's an entanglement that should never occur in the US, whether at the federal or state level. It boils down to government favoring one or more businesses over others, and then being suspect of using government power to favor its pet investments.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Nanny State's Omnipresent Gaze
I wrote this post on Wednesday regarding New York as a classical Nanny State.
Thanks to my Sitemeter information, I can now tell you that the folks running the Empire Nanny State are also behaving like Big Brother, watching every little opinion expressed about them.
For example, by Wednesday afternoon, I had five visits, nearly half of the day's blog traffic, from New York state employees in Averill Park and Bear Mountain State Park.
Empire State employees spent a total of roughly 35 minutes reading 18 pages of my blog.
I guess my little expose of how draconian New York State is in its control of who uses its recreational waterways, and how, aroused the curiosity, and maybe fear, of the state's bureaucrats.
As usual, I have the visiting computers' IP addresses. So, theoretically, one could identify the people in New York who were wasting taxpayer time and money on my article. But I'm not going to invade their privacy by publishing the addresses.
Do you think their webcrawler will find this post, too? And waste even more time worrying about my blog, and my ability to identify the involved public sector employees?
Maybe it's a good thing that I live in New Jersey.
Thanks to my Sitemeter information, I can now tell you that the folks running the Empire Nanny State are also behaving like Big Brother, watching every little opinion expressed about them.
For example, by Wednesday afternoon, I had five visits, nearly half of the day's blog traffic, from New York state employees in Averill Park and Bear Mountain State Park.
Empire State employees spent a total of roughly 35 minutes reading 18 pages of my blog.
I guess my little expose of how draconian New York State is in its control of who uses its recreational waterways, and how, aroused the curiosity, and maybe fear, of the state's bureaucrats.
As usual, I have the visiting computers' IP addresses. So, theoretically, one could identify the people in New York who were wasting taxpayer time and money on my article. But I'm not going to invade their privacy by publishing the addresses.
Do you think their webcrawler will find this post, too? And waste even more time worrying about my blog, and my ability to identify the involved public sector employees?
Maybe it's a good thing that I live in New Jersey.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Tales From The Nanny State
Here's a sad tale of the loss of liberty under the Nanny State.
Last weekend, a friend and I planned to spend a day kayaking.
She already has a boat, and I found it incredibly easy- and cheap- to rent one. I called a local outdoors store, reserved a large flatwater kayak and paddle. If I so chose, they'd have also provided straps for securing the kayak to my roof rack.
Having secured both boats to my Thule rack, I asked my friend, "where to?"
She replied with several attractive options in New York State....then frowned.
It seems that in New York, you can't float anything in the water without a permit. And the permit requires things like a whistle, PFD, and God knows what else.
Okay, I said, so we go to a lake, like Greenwood, and buy permits, then put in?
No way Jose.
My friend informed me that New York State sees fit to have only one (downstate? I don't know...hard to believe it's the only office in the entire Empire State) permitting office, located in Bear Mountain State Park. It seems there's woman in that office whose full-time job is selling permits to put vessels in to New York waters.
But I still lacked the whistle, and had forgotten my paddle jacket/PFD at home. So, no New York lakes for us. I don't even want to think about the fine or jail time I'd probably receive if I were stopped and found to be lacking the permit and other required accessories.
So my friend and I drove up the NY Thruway, turned left and kayaked at Monksville Reservoir. About a mile short of NY's Greenwood Lake, safely in NJ.
The put-in was a snap. Large parking lot, portable sanitary facility, and a superb concrete ramp.
Needless to say, we enjoyed a wonderful afternoon of paddling on a superb day. Sunny, hot and calm. Both of us being experienced kayakers, we never were in the slightest danger.
Isn't it sad that in New York State, you can't just wake up one morning, decide to paddle your boat, canoe or kayak on a lake, toss said craft on your car and go paddle? And, if a usage permit were required, that you can't go online to buy and download said permit?
No, you have to find your way to a single office in a state park, hope it's open, and then hope you qualify to get the damn permit.
That, my friends, is the Nanny State at work.
Happy paddling in NJ!
Last weekend, a friend and I planned to spend a day kayaking.
She already has a boat, and I found it incredibly easy- and cheap- to rent one. I called a local outdoors store, reserved a large flatwater kayak and paddle. If I so chose, they'd have also provided straps for securing the kayak to my roof rack.
Having secured both boats to my Thule rack, I asked my friend, "where to?"
She replied with several attractive options in New York State....then frowned.
It seems that in New York, you can't float anything in the water without a permit. And the permit requires things like a whistle, PFD, and God knows what else.
Okay, I said, so we go to a lake, like Greenwood, and buy permits, then put in?
No way Jose.
My friend informed me that New York State sees fit to have only one (downstate? I don't know...hard to believe it's the only office in the entire Empire State) permitting office, located in Bear Mountain State Park. It seems there's woman in that office whose full-time job is selling permits to put vessels in to New York waters.
But I still lacked the whistle, and had forgotten my paddle jacket/PFD at home. So, no New York lakes for us. I don't even want to think about the fine or jail time I'd probably receive if I were stopped and found to be lacking the permit and other required accessories.
So my friend and I drove up the NY Thruway, turned left and kayaked at Monksville Reservoir. About a mile short of NY's Greenwood Lake, safely in NJ.
The put-in was a snap. Large parking lot, portable sanitary facility, and a superb concrete ramp.
Needless to say, we enjoyed a wonderful afternoon of paddling on a superb day. Sunny, hot and calm. Both of us being experienced kayakers, we never were in the slightest danger.
Isn't it sad that in New York State, you can't just wake up one morning, decide to paddle your boat, canoe or kayak on a lake, toss said craft on your car and go paddle? And, if a usage permit were required, that you can't go online to buy and download said permit?
No, you have to find your way to a single office in a state park, hope it's open, and then hope you qualify to get the damn permit.
That, my friends, is the Nanny State at work.
Happy paddling in NJ!
Monday, August 30, 2010
States Legislate Against ObamaCare
One of the last of my Wall Street Journal reads from my absence early this month was the lead staff editorial on August 5th entitled Show Me ObamaCare.
The lead sentence states,
"The political revolt against ObamaCare came to Missouri Tuesday, with voters casting ballots three to one against the plan in its first direct referendum.
Missouri's Proposition C annulled the "individual mandate" within state lines, or the requirement that everyone buy insurance or else pay a tax. Liberals are trying to wave off this embarrassment, but that is hard to do when the split was 71.1% in favor in a state John McCain won by a mere 0.1% margin. The anti-ObamaCare measure carried every county save St. Louis and Kansas City with 668,000 votes, yet just 578,000 Republicans cast a ballot in the concurrent primaries."
The editorial went on to make a major point about how unelected bureaucrats will, under ObamaCare's provisions, define what "health care" is in America. This involves, among other things, defining the elements of "medical loss ratios," which are the measures by which the costs of delivering care, e.g., expenses for capital and people, are meant to be controlled.
But my interest in the piece was mostly about this state challenge to the federal law.
Will the federal government seek to moot or overturn this Missouri law under supremacy, by which federal law automatically supersedes state laws?
Will such action incite further rage in Missouri, causing the election of anybody running against federal-level Democrats?
Would such action by the federal government cause even more support for the states' lawsuit against ObamaCare, as well as a wider, united move by states to amend the Constitution so that supremacy is radically redefined and limited, if allowed at all?
These are, I believe, all causes for hope and optimism concerning the American experiment. It would seem to be time for the people, through their states, which are the parties to the Constitution- which parties do NOT include the federal government, itself- to revisit the agreement and more explicitly place limits on federal power, as well as the ability of federal elected and appointed officials to become a permanent political careerist class.
The lead sentence states,
"The political revolt against ObamaCare came to Missouri Tuesday, with voters casting ballots three to one against the plan in its first direct referendum.
Missouri's Proposition C annulled the "individual mandate" within state lines, or the requirement that everyone buy insurance or else pay a tax. Liberals are trying to wave off this embarrassment, but that is hard to do when the split was 71.1% in favor in a state John McCain won by a mere 0.1% margin. The anti-ObamaCare measure carried every county save St. Louis and Kansas City with 668,000 votes, yet just 578,000 Republicans cast a ballot in the concurrent primaries."
The editorial went on to make a major point about how unelected bureaucrats will, under ObamaCare's provisions, define what "health care" is in America. This involves, among other things, defining the elements of "medical loss ratios," which are the measures by which the costs of delivering care, e.g., expenses for capital and people, are meant to be controlled.
But my interest in the piece was mostly about this state challenge to the federal law.
Will the federal government seek to moot or overturn this Missouri law under supremacy, by which federal law automatically supersedes state laws?
Will such action incite further rage in Missouri, causing the election of anybody running against federal-level Democrats?
Would such action by the federal government cause even more support for the states' lawsuit against ObamaCare, as well as a wider, united move by states to amend the Constitution so that supremacy is radically redefined and limited, if allowed at all?
These are, I believe, all causes for hope and optimism concerning the American experiment. It would seem to be time for the people, through their states, which are the parties to the Constitution- which parties do NOT include the federal government, itself- to revisit the agreement and more explicitly place limits on federal power, as well as the ability of federal elected and appointed officials to become a permanent political careerist class.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Why California Is Going Bankrupt
If you don't understand why California is leading the nation's states in the direction of bankruptcy, read this article sent to me by a colleague.
BELL, Calif.-- Three administrators whose huge salaries sparked outrage in this small blue-collar suburb of Los Angeles have agreed to resign, the City Council said Friday.
Council members emerged from an hours-long closed session at midnight Friday and announced that they'd accepted the resignations of Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia and Police Chief Randy Adams.
Rizzo was the highest paid at $787,637 a year -- nearly twice the pay of President Barack Obama -- for overseeing one of the poorest towns in Los Angeles County.
Spaccia makes $376,288 a year and Adams earns $457,000, 50 percent more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck.
The three will not receive severance packages, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday. Rizzo will step down at the end of August and Spaccia will leave at the end of September. Adams will also leave at the end of August, after completing an evaluation of the police department, the Times said.
"I'm happy that they resigned but I'm disappointed at the pension that they're going to receive," said Ali Saleh, a member of the Bell Association to Stop the Abuse or BASTA.
Rizzo would be entitled to a state pension of more than $650,000 a year for life, according to calculations made by the Times. That would make Rizzo, 56, the highest-paid retiree in the state pension system.
Adams could get more than $411,000 a year.
Spaccia, 51, could be eligible for as much as $250,000 a year when she reaches 55, though the figure is less precise than for the other two officials, the Times said.
Saleh said the crowd applauded after the announcement but immediately yelled out questions about what would happen to the council members. Four of the five of them are paid close to $100,000 annually for part-time work. When the crowd's questions were not answered, they shouted, "Recall!, Recall!"
Revelations about the pay in Bell has sparked anger in the city of fewer than 40,000 residents. Census figures from 2008 show 17 percent of the population lives in poverty.
Enraged residents have staged protests demanding the firings and started a recall campaign against some council members.
"Woo-hoo, the salaries. Wow. What can I say? I think that's unbelievable," Christina Caldera, a 20-year resident of the city, said as she stood in line at a food bank.
Caldera, who is struggling after recently losing her job as a drug and alcohol counselor, said she generally was satisfied with the way the city was being run but felt high-paid officials should take a pay cut.
"What are they doing with all that money?" she asked. "Maybe they could put it into more jobs for other people."
Attempts to leave messages seeking comment from Rizzo and Spaccia failed because their voicemails were full. A message left for Adams was not immediately returned.
The county district attorney's office is investigating to determine if the high salaries for the council members violate any state laws. The City Council also intends to review city salaries, including those of its own members, according to Councilman Luis Artiga and Mayor Oscar Hernandez.
"We are going to analyze all the city payrolls and possibly will revise all the salaries of the city," Artiga said.
However, both men said they considered the City Council pay to be justified.
"We work a lot. I work with my community every day," the mayor said, as he shook hands with and embraced people leaving the food bank Thursday.
Council members are on call around the clock, and it is not uncommon for them to take calls in the middle of the night from people reporting problems with city services, Artiga said.
Though many residents are poor, Hernandez said they live in a city they can be proud of, one with a $22.7 million budget surplus, clean streets, refurbished parks and numerous programs for people of all ages. He pointed proudly down a street to a park filled with new exercise equipment.
When Rizzo arrived 17 years ago, Hernandez said, the city was $13 million in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. Rizzo obtained government grants to aid the city, the mayor said.
Rizzo was arrested near his home in Huntington Beach in March and charged with misdemeanor drunken driving. He pleaded not guilty and is due back in court for an Aug. 5 hearing, said Farrah Emami, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney's office.
The Los Angeles Times reported the salaries last week, prompting a large protest Monday at City Hall in which residents shouted and demanded that Rizzo be fired.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown said his office has launched an investigation in conjunction with the state's public employee retirement agency into pension and related benefits for Bell's civic leaders.
Those are certainly eye-popping salaries, aren't they? You have to wonder what the levels of compensation are for those council members who so quickly defended their own pay.
Isn't this the sort of surreal, unconnected-to-reality municipal pay levels, voted by town councils, that is driving voter discontent with elected officials at nearly all levels of government?
BELL, Calif.-- Three administrators whose huge salaries sparked outrage in this small blue-collar suburb of Los Angeles have agreed to resign, the City Council said Friday.
Council members emerged from an hours-long closed session at midnight Friday and announced that they'd accepted the resignations of Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia and Police Chief Randy Adams.
Rizzo was the highest paid at $787,637 a year -- nearly twice the pay of President Barack Obama -- for overseeing one of the poorest towns in Los Angeles County.
Spaccia makes $376,288 a year and Adams earns $457,000, 50 percent more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck.
The three will not receive severance packages, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday. Rizzo will step down at the end of August and Spaccia will leave at the end of September. Adams will also leave at the end of August, after completing an evaluation of the police department, the Times said.
"I'm happy that they resigned but I'm disappointed at the pension that they're going to receive," said Ali Saleh, a member of the Bell Association to Stop the Abuse or BASTA.
Rizzo would be entitled to a state pension of more than $650,000 a year for life, according to calculations made by the Times. That would make Rizzo, 56, the highest-paid retiree in the state pension system.
Adams could get more than $411,000 a year.
Spaccia, 51, could be eligible for as much as $250,000 a year when she reaches 55, though the figure is less precise than for the other two officials, the Times said.
Saleh said the crowd applauded after the announcement but immediately yelled out questions about what would happen to the council members. Four of the five of them are paid close to $100,000 annually for part-time work. When the crowd's questions were not answered, they shouted, "Recall!, Recall!"
Revelations about the pay in Bell has sparked anger in the city of fewer than 40,000 residents. Census figures from 2008 show 17 percent of the population lives in poverty.
Enraged residents have staged protests demanding the firings and started a recall campaign against some council members.
"Woo-hoo, the salaries. Wow. What can I say? I think that's unbelievable," Christina Caldera, a 20-year resident of the city, said as she stood in line at a food bank.
Caldera, who is struggling after recently losing her job as a drug and alcohol counselor, said she generally was satisfied with the way the city was being run but felt high-paid officials should take a pay cut.
"What are they doing with all that money?" she asked. "Maybe they could put it into more jobs for other people."
Attempts to leave messages seeking comment from Rizzo and Spaccia failed because their voicemails were full. A message left for Adams was not immediately returned.
The county district attorney's office is investigating to determine if the high salaries for the council members violate any state laws. The City Council also intends to review city salaries, including those of its own members, according to Councilman Luis Artiga and Mayor Oscar Hernandez.
"We are going to analyze all the city payrolls and possibly will revise all the salaries of the city," Artiga said.
However, both men said they considered the City Council pay to be justified.
"We work a lot. I work with my community every day," the mayor said, as he shook hands with and embraced people leaving the food bank Thursday.
Council members are on call around the clock, and it is not uncommon for them to take calls in the middle of the night from people reporting problems with city services, Artiga said.
Though many residents are poor, Hernandez said they live in a city they can be proud of, one with a $22.7 million budget surplus, clean streets, refurbished parks and numerous programs for people of all ages. He pointed proudly down a street to a park filled with new exercise equipment.
When Rizzo arrived 17 years ago, Hernandez said, the city was $13 million in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. Rizzo obtained government grants to aid the city, the mayor said.
Rizzo was arrested near his home in Huntington Beach in March and charged with misdemeanor drunken driving. He pleaded not guilty and is due back in court for an Aug. 5 hearing, said Farrah Emami, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney's office.
The Los Angeles Times reported the salaries last week, prompting a large protest Monday at City Hall in which residents shouted and demanded that Rizzo be fired.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown said his office has launched an investigation in conjunction with the state's public employee retirement agency into pension and related benefits for Bell's civic leaders.
Those are certainly eye-popping salaries, aren't they? You have to wonder what the levels of compensation are for those council members who so quickly defended their own pay.
Isn't this the sort of surreal, unconnected-to-reality municipal pay levels, voted by town councils, that is driving voter discontent with elected officials at nearly all levels of government?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
State Pensions Go "Hybrid?" It's Way Overdue
This past weekend's Wall Street Journal featured an article entitled States Shift to Hybrid Pensions.
Really? It's long, long overdue. Private sector employers moved to defined contribution plans decades ago. The very concept of defined benefit, with its outsize, unlimited risk to the provider, is a joke nowadays. Think maximal counterparty risk.
Think I'm kidding or wrong? Just ask long-retired steel or airline workers. They fought their employers tooth and nail while active, then expected defined benefit promises to come true, after having worked so hard to cripple their employers' ability to operate profitably far into the future.
Now we learn that state and local workers may have to rejoin the real world. Great. It's about time.
The amazing thing, though, one learns from the Journal piece, is how many states will continue to allow some form of defined benefit plan, including, in some cases, an absolute defined benefit.
Other states are more sanguine and are acknowledging the basic unaffordability of defined benefit plans for state and local government workers.
Still, one reads this howler,
"Some workers aren't enthralled. "It's less benefit overall because of the variability of that 401(K) component," said Doug Pratt, director of communications for the Michigan Education Association, a union representing 130,000 school employees.
The reduced benefits mean "we're going to lose some good people" who will find the benefits package less attractive, he said."
Yeah, right! That'll be the day!
Just where do all those "good people" plan to work instead?
As good as Chris Christie, New Jersey's new governor, is on this topic, he's still not tough enough. I want to see a governor and the legislature simply repudiate the unwise and unaffordable defined benefit plans, challenge the unions affected to sue and push the state into Chapter 7, where it can reorganize, restructure and negotiate obligations, and force these people into defined contribution plans, or nothing.
That's reality and the longer we delay recognizing this fairy tale of municipal worker defined benefit plans, the worse off we, and they, will all be.
Really? It's long, long overdue. Private sector employers moved to defined contribution plans decades ago. The very concept of defined benefit, with its outsize, unlimited risk to the provider, is a joke nowadays. Think maximal counterparty risk.
Think I'm kidding or wrong? Just ask long-retired steel or airline workers. They fought their employers tooth and nail while active, then expected defined benefit promises to come true, after having worked so hard to cripple their employers' ability to operate profitably far into the future.
Now we learn that state and local workers may have to rejoin the real world. Great. It's about time.
The amazing thing, though, one learns from the Journal piece, is how many states will continue to allow some form of defined benefit plan, including, in some cases, an absolute defined benefit.
Other states are more sanguine and are acknowledging the basic unaffordability of defined benefit plans for state and local government workers.
Still, one reads this howler,
"Some workers aren't enthralled. "It's less benefit overall because of the variability of that 401(K) component," said Doug Pratt, director of communications for the Michigan Education Association, a union representing 130,000 school employees.
The reduced benefits mean "we're going to lose some good people" who will find the benefits package less attractive, he said."
Yeah, right! That'll be the day!
Just where do all those "good people" plan to work instead?
As good as Chris Christie, New Jersey's new governor, is on this topic, he's still not tough enough. I want to see a governor and the legislature simply repudiate the unwise and unaffordable defined benefit plans, challenge the unions affected to sue and push the state into Chapter 7, where it can reorganize, restructure and negotiate obligations, and force these people into defined contribution plans, or nothing.
That's reality and the longer we delay recognizing this fairy tale of municipal worker defined benefit plans, the worse off we, and they, will all be.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
"The Process IS The Plan"
I saw a priceless clip of Gerry Brown being interviewed on CNBC the other day. It was one of the more hilarious Q&As I've seen lately.
Brown, the Democratic candidate for Governor of California, was asked how he would close the expected $19B or so budget gap, were he to be elected in November. His reply was that he would 'go to the people' with the budget areas, 'line by line,' and ask them to prioritize where to cut spending.
When pressed by the reporter for where, specifically, he would cut government spending, Brown repeated his description of the process he intends to employ.
The CNBC reporter, growing impatient, said,
'But that's not a plan, that's a process.'
To which Brown retorted,
"The process IS the plan!"
Of course, it's no plan whatsoever. You don't need to elect a full-time governor to do what Brown suggests- hiring a polling organization and a professional mediator should do the trick.
If this is what Gerry Brown intends to use as his plan for budgetary action while campaigning this summer, Meg Whitman, his Republican opponent, has a lot for which to be thankful.
As the former CEO of eBay, I would bet Whitman has a lot more specific and cogently-themed plan for balancing California's budget, should she become governor.
Just thinking about this issue, it's so obvious that the least Brown, or any candidate, could do would be to conduct some focus group research, in order to illustrate what actual voting Californians think about budget priorities. This would provide some foundation for whatever priorities a candidate put forward.
It's hard to believe, especially as a former governor of the state, that Brown actually thinks he can be elected again without espousing any principles or priorities, and, instead, asking the voters to do their own budget-cutting.
Brown, the Democratic candidate for Governor of California, was asked how he would close the expected $19B or so budget gap, were he to be elected in November. His reply was that he would 'go to the people' with the budget areas, 'line by line,' and ask them to prioritize where to cut spending.
When pressed by the reporter for where, specifically, he would cut government spending, Brown repeated his description of the process he intends to employ.
The CNBC reporter, growing impatient, said,
'But that's not a plan, that's a process.'
To which Brown retorted,
"The process IS the plan!"
Of course, it's no plan whatsoever. You don't need to elect a full-time governor to do what Brown suggests- hiring a polling organization and a professional mediator should do the trick.
If this is what Gerry Brown intends to use as his plan for budgetary action while campaigning this summer, Meg Whitman, his Republican opponent, has a lot for which to be thankful.
As the former CEO of eBay, I would bet Whitman has a lot more specific and cogently-themed plan for balancing California's budget, should she become governor.
Just thinking about this issue, it's so obvious that the least Brown, or any candidate, could do would be to conduct some focus group research, in order to illustrate what actual voting Californians think about budget priorities. This would provide some foundation for whatever priorities a candidate put forward.
It's hard to believe, especially as a former governor of the state, that Brown actually thinks he can be elected again without espousing any principles or priorities, and, instead, asking the voters to do their own budget-cutting.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Illinois- Poster Child For Fiscal Failure
I read a troubling piece in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend describing Illinois' budget woes and fiscal desperation.
Amy Merrick's piece in Friday's Journal detailed how out of control the state's financial condition has become. Among the antics occurring are: the state's legislature adjourning nearly a month early and tossing the problems to the governor; the governor's proposed income tax hike on hold; a doubling of the state's cigarette tax to help plug the budget gap, and; a plan to sell the state's tobacco settlement payment stream for a lump sum, a la J.G. Wentworth.
Ms. Merrick writes,
"As a result, Illinois, along with other states, routinely has postponed paying its bills, short-changed pension plans and spent more than it collects in revenue."
The governor's budget has a $10.6B shortfall, which is to be partially addressed through- borrowing.
State tax revenues have predictably fallen- some 8% from last year. The state's cash position, according to its Comptroller, will be, at June 30, "exceedingly difficult."
Ms. Merrick notes that Illinois owes billions of dollars in payments to "hospitals, universities, social-service providers and others." The total is expected to top $5.5B by the end of June.
California, New Jersey and New York figure prominently in most articles about troubled state finances. Now, my home state, once a solvent industrial power, is counting on long term borrowing to meet current obligations.
Does it not make you wonder what our First Rookie learned in his few years as a member of this dysfunctional state's dysfunctional legislature?
Certainly, fiscal rectitude and balancing a government's spending and revenues wouldn't appear to have been among the lessons, would it?
Amy Merrick's piece in Friday's Journal detailed how out of control the state's financial condition has become. Among the antics occurring are: the state's legislature adjourning nearly a month early and tossing the problems to the governor; the governor's proposed income tax hike on hold; a doubling of the state's cigarette tax to help plug the budget gap, and; a plan to sell the state's tobacco settlement payment stream for a lump sum, a la J.G. Wentworth.
Ms. Merrick writes,
"As a result, Illinois, along with other states, routinely has postponed paying its bills, short-changed pension plans and spent more than it collects in revenue."
The governor's budget has a $10.6B shortfall, which is to be partially addressed through- borrowing.
State tax revenues have predictably fallen- some 8% from last year. The state's cash position, according to its Comptroller, will be, at June 30, "exceedingly difficult."
Ms. Merrick notes that Illinois owes billions of dollars in payments to "hospitals, universities, social-service providers and others." The total is expected to top $5.5B by the end of June.
California, New Jersey and New York figure prominently in most articles about troubled state finances. Now, my home state, once a solvent industrial power, is counting on long term borrowing to meet current obligations.
Does it not make you wonder what our First Rookie learned in his few years as a member of this dysfunctional state's dysfunctional legislature?
Certainly, fiscal rectitude and balancing a government's spending and revenues wouldn't appear to have been among the lessons, would it?
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
States Reject Wonderboy's Government Healthcare Insurance Pools
It's probably not the sort of news story you'll see on a major broadcast network like NBC or CBS. Or probably even the Communist News Network.
As of today, 18 states have rejected using the option of government insurance pools for health insurance, as outlined in the health care bill Wonderboy and his Congressional cronies rammed through in March.
I haven't heard which, if any, states have actually chosen to use the pools. But it's reasonable to expect that by summer, at least half of the 50 states will choose not to hitch their health care wagons to the rather unspecific, risky option of an open-ended federal government risk pool. Who knows how many states will ultimately reject this shadowy insurance option?
Quite the come-down for the Democrats, isn't it? So far, about 1/3 of the states have rejected the federal option. And we're only two months into the new era of new medicine, courtesy of Frisco Nan, Wonderboy & Co.
As of today, 18 states have rejected using the option of government insurance pools for health insurance, as outlined in the health care bill Wonderboy and his Congressional cronies rammed through in March.
I haven't heard which, if any, states have actually chosen to use the pools. But it's reasonable to expect that by summer, at least half of the 50 states will choose not to hitch their health care wagons to the rather unspecific, risky option of an open-ended federal government risk pool. Who knows how many states will ultimately reject this shadowy insurance option?
Quite the come-down for the Democrats, isn't it? So far, about 1/3 of the states have rejected the federal option. And we're only two months into the new era of new medicine, courtesy of Frisco Nan, Wonderboy & Co.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
California's Big Grab For Your Money
Sickening, isn't it?
The Govenator of California, Arnold Schwarzennegger, has appealed to the federal government to give his state $8B to help cover the shortfall in its proposed 2010-11 $103B budget.
Staggering out of last year's near-bankruptcy, which included California issuing script, instead of paying its bills, the nation's one-time economic powerhouse has become a wayward, spendthrift liberal bastion.
One state legislator is on record as laughing off the idea of cutting the state's expenses to fit within its available, tax-funded revenues.
Thus, California wants Congress to tax every other state in order to pay for about 8% of its bloated spending plans. Here are two gems from an LA Times article,
Apparently these people don't understand a few realities. First, Congress passed a $787B 'stimulus' bill last year. How can that not be sufficient for California's needs? Second, the answer to unpleasant choices is not always to run to Washington and beggar the rest of the country to bail you out. Finally, 'federal aid to the states' is another way of saying, 'let's weaken the states and become even more dependent upon the already overpowering federal government.'
I would like to believe that Representatives and Senators from 49 other states know enough to say "no" to any aid to California.
Why should every other state work to balance its spending with its revenues, while California gets a free ride to spend everyone else's money?
The Govenator of California, Arnold Schwarzennegger, has appealed to the federal government to give his state $8B to help cover the shortfall in its proposed 2010-11 $103B budget.
Staggering out of last year's near-bankruptcy, which included California issuing script, instead of paying its bills, the nation's one-time economic powerhouse has become a wayward, spendthrift liberal bastion.
One state legislator is on record as laughing off the idea of cutting the state's expenses to fit within its available, tax-funded revenues.
Thus, California wants Congress to tax every other state in order to pay for about 8% of its bloated spending plans. Here are two gems from an LA Times article,
"Families are struggling, we have an incredibly high unemployment rate, and we can't afford to cut these programs any more," said Nancy Berlin, director of California Partnership, a statewide coalition of advocates for the poor based in Los Angeles. "Sacramento has got to pull it together and find another way out of this. They can't take more from low-income families. If they do, we will find more people on the streets."
"There is a strong case not only here in California but across the country for continued federal aid to the states," she said. "Absent additional assistance we could see state governments prolonging the national economic downturn by continuing to cut their budgets."
Apparently these people don't understand a few realities. First, Congress passed a $787B 'stimulus' bill last year. How can that not be sufficient for California's needs? Second, the answer to unpleasant choices is not always to run to Washington and beggar the rest of the country to bail you out. Finally, 'federal aid to the states' is another way of saying, 'let's weaken the states and become even more dependent upon the already overpowering federal government.'
I would like to believe that Representatives and Senators from 49 other states know enough to say "no" to any aid to California.
Why should every other state work to balance its spending with its revenues, while California gets a free ride to spend everyone else's money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
