December 22-25, 2010
Dec 22 11:45 Beyond Scary: Connecting the Censorship Dots Dec 22 15:14 With Autocrats Like This, Why Shouldn't We Trust We The People? Dec 22 18:02 Workday Minnesota: Spreading the DFL's Propaganda Dec 22 19:00 Central MN Committee Assignments Dec 23 09:20 Reintroducing Dave Camp Dec 24 13:36 The Glory of the Lord: Merry Christmas Dec 25 20:21 This Administration's Incompetence Rewarded With Threats & Intimidation Dec 25 20:38 Haven't We Heard This Before?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Beyond Scary: Connecting the Censorship Dots
It's beyond scary when you start connecting the Obama administration's censorship dots. Thanks to John Fund's column , the Obama administration's dots can be connected. Here's the first dot in the puzzle:
There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.
Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.
In other words, Genachowski and Obama have worked closely for months on end and in the past. This censorship vision didn't start recently. They've thought about this for ages. Now let's connect another dot with that dot:
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
The net neutrality movement started with a capitalist-hating socialist friend of President Obama. His radical opinions are expressed here:
A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."
This is what the Obama administration's central planning plan looks like. They've been exposed as the gang who wanted to manipulate/control everything. Health care. Banks. Media. Financial institutions. Student loans. Car manufacturers.
They're the bunch that can't control enough things. What's the Bond movie title? The world is not enough?
Sadly, that fits.
Posted Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment 1 by Jeff Rosenberg at 22-Dec-10 02:01 PM
The disinformation and hysteria on the right over Net Neutrality is really quite shocking. In fact, Net Neutrality is the quintessence of free speech. It's a simple regulation that says that Internet Service Providers may not discriminate based on content -- they must treat all content the same.
Not only is that not problematic, it's laudable, and completely necessary. Net Neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or government control, and I think you know it. In fact, there isn't even a weak connection. People like Fund are just making stuff up.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-10 02:12 PM
You're either a liar or an idiot. At the moment, I don't know which. The notion that the government, especially this administration, will regulate & protect liberty isn't just laughable. It borders on the insane.
This administration is nothing if not about the seizing of authority.
BTW, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to make these rulings without Congress giving it that authority. Those pesky damn judges just keep getting in this administration's way. Don't they know their place? Don't they know that they're supposed to genuflect before their messiah???
Comment 2 by Jeff Rosenberg at 22-Dec-10 02:20 PM
I notice you haven't responded with a single fact. Your "proof" of your claims seems to be your irrational fury that there's a Democratic administration.
It's probably about time you dealt with that.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-10 04:59 PM
Why didn't you deal with the issue of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals says that the FCC doesn't have the authority to impose these regulations??? Don't you think that a unanimous court ruling saying the FCC doesn't have the authority has merit?
PS- That's the only argument I have to make. The rest is irrelevant.
With Autocrats Like This, Why Shouldn't We Trust We The People?
According to Scott Rasmussen's polling , the vast majority of people trust the American people more than they trust government:
The Tea Party is part of a larger group that is frustrated with the political status quo. That larger group, identified as Mainstream voters, includes a solid majority of Americans. Mainstream voters tend to trust the wisdom of the American people more than the ideologies of politicians. Among the larger group of Mainstream voters, 25% consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Another 11% have friends or family members in the movement.
After reading about this edict from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius , it's certainly understandable:
And seasons greetings from the folks at Health and Human Services too. Yesterday the department dropped one of ObamaCare's more destructive regulations, which will further increase political control of health care and impose price controls on private insurance premiums.
Under the 136-page rule, the federal government will now decide what counts as an "unreasonable" rate increase, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote to Governors yesterday urging them "to prevent unjustified and excessive health insurance premium growth." Apparently, "unreasonable" means rate increases that exceed 10% next year, except when it doesn't. If an insurer crosses this arbitrary threshold, "The review process would then determine if the increase is, in fact, unreasonable." So that's cleared up.
Couple this ruling with the provision in Obamacare that prevents insurance companies from charging more for high risk patients than they charge for low-risk patients and you've got a recipe for a rash of insurance company bankruptcies or insurance company liquidations.
President Obama said that Obamacare would drive costs down. It can't because its goal isn't to drive costs down. The only thing that drives costs down are new technologies or changes in habits. Obamacare doesn't drive either.
What it does, thanks to the HHS secretary's near dictatorial authority, is give Ms. Sebelius the authority to unilaterally implement price controls. When the authority for implementing regulations is vested in a single person, the opportunity for mischief and/or bad policy increases exponentially.
That's before considering the fact that Obamacare essentially eliminates the concept of checks and balances by focusing tons of authority with the HHS secretary and a handful of bureaucrats.
Rest assured that Obamacare will be the gift that keeps giving to the GOP the next 2 years. With these dictatorial edicts, the elimination of the concept of checks and balances and the ignoring of the American people, there's little reason to think that Obamacar's popularity will rise anytime soon.
In fact, there's a better possibility that it'll be ruled unconstitutional than the possibility that it'll someday be popular.
Posted Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:14 PM
No comments.
Workday Minnesota: Spreading the DFL's Propaganda
Based on this article on Workday Minnesota's website, unions are more than willing to spread Gov.-Elect Dayton's propaganda. Here's what I'm basing that opinion on:
When Mark Dayton takes office as Minnesota's new governor January 3, and the new legislature is sworn in January 4, a grim task awaits: how to craft a budget in the face of a projected $6.2 billion deficit. 'This is going to be tough. This is a crisis,' Dayton said during a visit to the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation delegate meeting December 8.
The new Republican majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate likely will continue to insist that the state solve the budget crisis without raising taxes, but that's the rigid ideological stance that helped create the budget mess in the first place.
'I will continue to insist that taxes be collected more progressively,' Dayton said at a State Capitol news conference December 8, his first public comments after the State Canvassing board certified his election.
Minnesota's unions, along with the faith community and nonprofits, will continue to maintain that the state can't meet the budget crisis only by making budget cuts, advocating that raising revenue fairly must be part of the solution.
'There's no way to solve the over $6 billion deficit with cuts alone,' said Jim Niland, legislative political action director for AFSCME Council 5. 'That's going to be our biggest initiative, pushing revenue as part of the final budget deal.'
First off, there isn't a $6.2 billion deficit. Had the DFL legislature that got their walking papers this November not written the budget bills with gigantic tails, the deficit would be substantially smaller.
Let's remember that revenue for the upcoming biennium will be approximately $33,000,000,000, or $3,000,000,000 more than the biennium we're currently in. What this means is that the legislature would have to agree to spend $39,000,000,000, which is almost $5,000,000,000 more than the record they agreed to spend in the 2008-09 biennium.
Let's remember that the DFL insisted on spending essentially all of the $2,163,000,000 surplus that year just when the economy was slowing.
What this means is that the DFL thinks government deserves a substantial raise at a time when Minnesotans are unemployed or having difficulty paying their bills and/or have gone years without a pay raise.
It's time for the DFL to get their hands our of wallets. We aren't the DFL's ATMs.
Most importantly, we have the right to demand that government first take a look at its books and determine whether they're spending money efficiently, on things that we need and on things that will make Minnesota more prosperous.
I'll bet a team of budget hawks could find a bunch of money being spent on special interest wish list items that could be chopped and not be missed by anyone other than the special interest groups receiving the money.
That's before thinking about the money that might be saved through reforms. That total might be substantial, too, perhaps $1,000,000,000-$2,000,000,000.
To be sure, there will be some pain in this budgeting process. Still, it's quite possible to trim the deficit figure substantially.
The best way to think of the projected budget figure is to think of it as a scare tactic that the DFL hopes will scare people into agreeing to raise taxes. We should reject that tactic, especially until we know what's needed and what's a lobbyist's wish list item.
Posted Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:02 PM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 23-Dec-10 11:53 PM
For the sake of argument only, let's throw out a scenario.
Dayton wants a tax increase. No ifs ands or buts about it. The Republicans oppose any tax increase.
The GOP wants major election reforms - including photo ID and the removal of vouching and same-day voting. Dayton opposes it.
Can anyone out there picture the GOP giving in on their resistance to new taxes - in exchange for Dayton signing a major election reform bill?
Think about it for a moment. A serious election reform bill could literally and figuratively gut the DFL in this state for years to come. It would definitely improve the GOP's chances of winning some statewide elections for a change.
Can anyone picture the GOP-controlled legislature as well as Gov Dayton (oh, how it pains me to say that!) doing some vote-trading?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Dec-10 12:03 PM
I can't picture it. The Republicans would be better off keeping taxes where they're currently at because they can use the Photo ID issue the next 2 election cycles.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 25-Dec-10 11:51 AM
Gary:
There's an easier solution. Since Mark Ritchie doesn't know how to do his job just don't give the Secretary of State's office a cent to run elections and take away other functions to other departments. That way we can highlight what the DFL doesn't want to do.
It avoids the deal that MplsSteve was talking about
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Central MN Committee Assignments
Kurt Zellers' committee assignments for central MN legislators were about as solid as solid gets.
King Banaian's Assignments- State Gov't Finance, Capital Investment, Rules and Legislative Administration and Higher Ed.
Sondra Erickson's Assignments- Education Finance, Taxes, Education Reform (Chairman), Ethics
Mary Franson's Assignments- Ag and Rural Development Policy and Finance, HHS Reform, HHS Finance
Steve Gottwalt's Assignments- HHS Reform Chairman, Taxes, HHS Finance
Mary Kiffmeyers' Assignments- Ways And Means, HHS Reform, Taxes, HHS Finance (Vice-Chair)
Mike LeMieur's Assignments- Ag and Rural Development Policy and Finance, Property Tax Division, Veterans Division, Jobs and Economic Development Division
Tim O'Driscoll's Assignments- Commerce and Regulation Reform, Veterans Division, Education Reform, Gov't Operations and Elections
As an aside, of these 7 seats, 4 are gains: King, Sondra Erickson, Mary Franson and Mike LeMieur. King and Mary Franson won open seats while Sondra Erickson and Mike LeMieur won the rematches from 2008. Tim O'Driscoll held onto the open seat vacated by Dan Severson while Steve Gottwalt and Mary Kiffmeyer cruised to easy election victories.
King will contribute immediately in the State Gov't Finance, Capital Investment and Higher Education committees. Getting a position on the Rules Committee as a freshman is quite an accomplishment, one that I'm confident King will do well in.
Steve Gottwalt will do an outstanding job as chairman of the HHS Reform committee. This is a new committee, one which is tailor-made for Steve. Steve will do a great job on the Taxes Committee and the HHS Finance Committee.
Mary Kiffmeyer got great assignments on the Ways and Means Committee, the Taxes Committee, the HHS Reform Committee and the HHS Finance Committee, each of which where she'll be paired with Steve Gottwalt.
Sondra Erickson will do a great job as chair of the Education Reform Committee. Also, you couldn't pick a better person for the Ethic Committee. I've known Sondy since 2006 and can honestly say that you'll never find a more trustworthy person. As trustworthy, yes, more trustworthy, not a chance.
It'll be interesting to see legislation proceed through these committees. I suspect that there'll be a tussle or two in the Taxes Committee, the Education Reform Committee, the HHS Reform Committee and in the Commerce and Regulation Reform Committee.
Posted Wednesday, December 22, 2010 7:00 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Dec-10 08:25 AM
If the rest of the House does as good as this group will do we will have a great house session for a change.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-10 09:45 AM
I'll give props to the central MN BPOU's for recruiting an outstanding group of candidates. I noticed this way back in April. This November, they proved me right.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 23-Dec-10 10:14 AM
Almost is interesting is the new and more effective committee structure they will work in. "HHS reform" and "Education reform" being two of the most telling.
Reintroducing Dave Camp
The first time I, like most of the nation, noticed Rep. Dave Camp was at the health care summit. Most think of that as Camp's coming out party. I remember listening to Rush gush about Camp's performance. As I recall, Camp was the star of the morning session.
That isn't a tiny thing. Going into the summit, the majority of pundits thought Team GOP was going to get creamed, not because they didn't know their stuff but because most people thought President Obama would talk about all the poor people who needed his health care elixir.
Thanks to Camp, Sen. Alexander and Eric Cantor, Team GOP didn't just outperform their expectations. They won the morning session handily. While the Democrats told their endless string of sad stories, Team GOP stuck with their policies, showing how their policies would benefit people more.
Now George Will's column reintroduces him to us. Here's a sample of Camp's wit:
Now 57 and about to begin his 11th term in Congress, he will chair the House Ways and Means Committee, where he will try to implement the implications of his complaint that "the tax code is 10 times longer than the Bible, without the good news."
Rest assured that one thing Dave Camp will work on is tax reform and simplification. People won't have difficulty recognizing the difference between Camp's Ways and Means Committee and Charlie Rangel's regime.
Camp likely won't only be involved in tax reform. I suspect that he'll have a significant role to play in health care reform, too, where he'll work to craft policies that genuinely will bring costs down, will improve accessability and will let people stay in charge of their health care.
Again, there won't be any trouble distinguishing between the Obamacare government takeover of health care and the Ryan-Camp version of real health care reform.
Posted Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:20 AM
No comments.
The Glory of the Lord: Merry Christmas
Christmas has always been one of the most special days for me, not because of the great presents I've received or the great meals I've eaten, though I've received some great presents and eaten some great meals on Christmas Day.
From early in my school days, I've had a great love of Christmas because I've loved the picture of that first Christmas. Though I love reading the Christmas story from any of the Gospels and in a number of translations, my favorite Christmas story is Luke's account using the King James Version.
Christmas is a night when the King of Kings and Lord of Lords entered time as a little baby. In my mind, it's a night of epic regal proportions. That's why the King James Version text is the right text:
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.The glory of the LORD shone round about them and they were sore afraid.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
Can you imagine being a lowly shepherd just watching your sheep, probably on a hillside just outside Bethlehem? It's probably been a boring, cold night. Many of their nights were filled with routine, to put it kindly.
This night would be different, though. The Baby Jesus is born in a humble setting, in a manger. The LORD could certainly have sent His message to the religious elites, the Sanhedrin. That certainly wouldn't have surprised anyone.
Instead, the God who created Heaven and Earth chose to reveal the birth of His Son to lowly shepherds. How fitting. Jesus, as we know, called Himself the Good Shepherd, willing to lay down His life for His flock, the Man who would leave 99 safe sheep to find the 1 lost sheep.
How fitting, too, that their response to that night's events was filled with excitement:
20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.May this Christmas leave you with the same joy and peace as those shepherds felt that night just outside Bethlehem. May it be that you experience the Good Shepherd's touch tonight.
Posted Friday, December 24, 2010 1:36 PM
No comments.
This Administration's Incompetence Rewarded With Threats & Intimidation
According to this article , the TSA is dealing with its ineptitude by intimidating pilots:
An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.
The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.
He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.
Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.
At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.
A follow-up letter from the sheriff's department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.
The YouTube videos, posted Nov. 28, show what the pilot calls the irony of flight crews being forced to go through TSA screening while ground crew who service the aircraft are able to access secure areas simply by swiping a card.
"As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It's only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here," the pilot narrates.
Rather than correcting their mistakes, the TSA chose to intimidate this pilot. Frankly, the TSA people who confiscated this pilot's weapon should be terminated, as should the sheriff's deputies who confiscated the pilot's CCW permit.
This is totally typical of Janet Napolitano's thinking. Rather than taking corrective action to make airports safer, she opts for intimidating a pilot.
The good news is that this story will now get tons of media attention, forcing her to actually deal with her flawed approach to airport security. Napolitano won't get away with her usual song and dance routine. President Obama won't get away with keeping her in his cabinet. They both should be held accountable, Napolitano for her ineptitude, Obama for not picking a serious person for this important national security job.
We can't afford having these gaping holes in our airport security system. There's a real war going on. It'd be nice if this administration started acting like we're at war. (That's before talking about James Clapper looking totally clueless in his interview with Diane Sawyer.)
It'd be great to see some seriousness from this administration rather than watching another episode of the Keystone Cops. This is serious business. It's time that this administration started treating it that way.
Posted Saturday, December 25, 2010 8:21 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Dec-10 09:26 PM
We've got the TSA checking everybody's shoes, everybody's nudie pics and groping some folks' underwear. The terrorists have already won. Time to start picking on the terrorists and leaving the rest of us be.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 26-Dec-10 08:18 AM
J you wouldn't happen to know what day that Homeland security takes off so I can avoid the possible terrorist attacks on the day off.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 26-Dec-10 09:31 AM
I think it's a pretty simple proposition, really. Just recognize that the shoe bomber actually got on the plane, and THEN the TSA started checking every shoe. After the Shampoo bomber actually got on the plane, they started requiring plastic baggies and limiting baby formula to 3 ounces. Thank heavens they didn't limit breast milk unless it was in a bottle. Only after the Fruit of Kaboom bomber actually got on the plane did they start with the pornomatic and the Freedom Fondles. All you have to do to avoid being blown up is to show up with a bomb they haven't seen yet, and you can get on the plane with a reasonable certainty of your safety. After all, what's the chances that there are TWO bombs on a plane? Certainly those odds are much better than the TSA ever catching one. They take EVERY day off!
Haven't We Heard This Before?
AFSCME President Gerald McIntee issued this statement on how unfair Steve Kroft's segment was on public employee pensions:
Chris Christie is more interested in scoring political points than solving state and local budget challenges and getting the economy moving. The fact is, hundreds of thousands of public employees, just like private sector employees, have been laid off and taken pay and benefit cuts, even as Wall Street executives lined their pockets with taxpayer money and took home huge bonuses. And as Steve Kroft's report noted, much of the pension problem stems from the fact that politicians did not contribute to their pension funds.
Contrary to what Christie would have Americans believe, public employee pensions are not the problem. The average pension for an AFSCME member is just $19,000, and eighty percent of this comes from investment returns and contributions by the employees themselves. The challenge can be met if state and local governments, began contributing just 1.5 percent more of their budgets toward their pension funds in the years ahead.
The long term solution to state and local fiscal challenges is a robust economy, one that is creating jobs and replenishing tax revenue. Christie's decision to scuttle 6,000 new jobs to build a needed tunnel between New Jersey and New York shows that he's more interested in scoring political points than he is in solving the problem.
Public employees stand ready to help state and local governments get through the economic storm. But to suggest that they have not sacrificed is a lie, and we will not allow politicians like Chris Christie to blame the economic crisis on working and middle class Americans.
Mr. McIntee's statement is missing some key statistics, like the fact that public employees, teachers included, can retire at insanely early ages. He isn't telling people about OPEBs :
Other Post-Employment Benefits
What Does Other Post-Employment Benefits - OPEB Mean?
Post-employment benefits that an employee will begin to receive at the start of retirement. This does not include pension benefits paid to the retired employee. Other post-employment benefits that a retiree can be compensated for are life insurance premiums, healthcare premiums and deferred-compensation arrangements.
According to this, it's possible for a public employee to retire at an early age, sometimes as young as 52-55, then get a pension PLUS get OPEB benefits that pay for things like health or life insurance premiums, possibly even deferred-compensation packages. (I suspect that the deferred-compensation packages are for higher ranking officials, not the rank-and-file.)
That's before talking about the retire-and-rehire aspect of retirement for public employees. This article does a nice job laying that out:
Double-dipping isn't just a faux pas at the appetizer table. It also refers to workers who retire and then promptly are rehired, collecting both pension and salary.
This revolving-door practice among state workers is no secret; some lawmakers have tried periodically to clamp down on it, and a Seattle Times investigation earlier this year revealed that it's going strong at state institutions of higher learning.
The state's budget woes, coupled with an underfunded pension system, are giving new impetus to closing the so-called 'retire-rehire' loophole for at least some state workers. Gov. Chris Gregoire is proposing changes that would apply to higher-education employees as part of a broader pension-overhaul plan.
Little wonder double-dipping is popular. Who wouldn't love to 'retire,' start collecting a generous pension and then get rehired in the same job, perhaps with a raise? If state rules allow it, a worker would almost be a chump not to take advantage of the policy, right?
Like the article says, this isn't a secret. I remember President Reagan rail against double-dipping for federal employees. That's almost 30 years ago.
A major problem with public employee pensions is that most, if not all of them, are defined benfit plans. Most private sector jobs have a defined contribution plan. The downside for employees for a defined contribution plan is that they don't allow employees to retire at ridiculously young ages.
That's actually an upside to the taxpayers and to the structural health of the retirement plan.
The things that Mr. McIntee didn't say matter to the structural health of public employee retirement systems. His statement hid some of the structural problems. This isn't dissimilar to the interference Barney Frank and others ran for Fannie and Freddie.
Remember Frank's statement that people were being alarmist about the problems Fannie and Freddie were experiencing. Mr. McIntee's statement isn't significantly different. They're both running interference for programs that are structurally unsound and that can't be sustained.
We learned in October, 2008 that Barney Frank was wrong. Let's hope it doesn't take a full-blown crisis before we find out that Mr. McIntee is telling whoppers.
It isn't a matter of whether Mr. McIntee is telling whoppers. It's a matter of whether it'll take a full-blown crisis to prove that he's telling whoppers.
Let's hope it doesn't.
Either way, our politicians need to hear from us that we'll have their backs if they straighten out this mess. It's the only way we'll avoid that crisis.
Posted Saturday, December 25, 2010 8:38 PM
Comment 1 by anonymous at 25-Dec-10 09:19 PM
A union pension might be $19k but a typical municipal employee will have in addition to the union plan, a city plan AND a 401k
