#1
Oh gee! I thought he was gonna say, "Send a Seal in, capture one of the big finance guys, slap him around, and kick him in the butt." If they would do that every now and then, the finance guys on Wall Street would behave a bit better. We could call this "feel good justice'.
#2
We already have established laws & people to apply many useful fixes, e.g., laws against fraud and conspiracy to restrain trade. We even have an Attorney General, who is reputed to be alive, although that entity seems to prefer pursuing useless goals.
From Newsweek! But it's George F. Will, who so often gets to be the the lone conservative pundit in the group. He's the one who administered a salutory slap-down to Bill Maher on "ABC News This Week" recently (start around 2:50), again the only conservative at the table.
Los Angeles--to get from downtown to the residence of the man who, in 2005, became the first Hispanic elected mayor since 1870, you drive through a sliver of Korea. With 125,000 people packed into 2.7 of the city's 469 square miles, Koreatown is typical of this polyglot city where more than 100 languages are spoken and nothing is typical except recentness: 46 percent of the residents are foreign-born.
So when His Honor Antonio Villaraigosa was invited to appear at a recent rally protesting Arizona's law concerning illegal immigrants, he went. But he stipulated: "I want American flags." He knows that protesting immigrants should not carry the flags of Mexico and other nations where they have chosen not to live.
The city is chin-deep in California's trickle-down misery, and last week Richard Riordan, who was L.A. mayor from 1993 to 2001, coauthored with Alexander Rubalcava--an investment adviser--a Wall Street Journal column declaring the city's fiscal crisis "terminal." They say Villaraigosa should "face the fact" that "between now and 2014 the city will likely declare bankruptcy." Villaraigosa says that will not happen. But look what has happened.
For 15 years Villaraigosa was an organizer for the Service Employees International Union and the city's teachers' union. Now he is trying to cope with, and partially undo, largesse for unionized public employees: "I have to sign the checks on the front, not just the back."
Riordan and Rubalcava say two numbers--8 percent and 5,000--define the city's crisis. L.A. has conveniently but unrealistically assumed 8 percent annual growth of the assets of the city's pension funds. The two main funds' actual growth over the last decade have been 3.5 percent and 2.8 percent. And Villaraigosa added 5,000 people to the city's payroll in his first term.
Nationwide, government employees are most of what remains of "defined benefit" America. More than 80 percent of government workers have defined benefits--as opposed to defined-contribution--pension plans. Only about 20 percent of private-sector workers have defined-benefit plans. California's parlous condition owes much to burdensome health-care and pension promises negotiated with public employees' unions, promises that are suffocating the state's economic growth.
Riordan and Rubalcava suggest replacing defined-benefit pensions with 401(k) accounts for new public employees. But when another product of America's immigrant culture, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, tried to do that, public employees' unions squashed the idea. Riordan and Rubalcava say the retirement age for public employees should be raised from 55 to 65, employees should pay more than the maximum of 9 percent of their salaries for pensions, and the city should end subsidies of up to $1,200 a month for health insurance for those who retire before becoming eligible for Medicare. But even his ideas for nibbling at the edges of the fiscal problem by privatizing the zoo, the convention center, and city parking lots are opposed by the unions.
They are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself for ever-larger portions of wealth extracted by the taxing power from the private sector. Increasingly, government workers are the electoral base of the party of government. So Villaraigosa must live with the arithmetic of interest-group liberalism. The federal government, he says, can run deficits and print money; the state government (supposedly) must balance the budget but can push burdens down onto cities. There, he says, "you have 10 cookies in the cookie jar and every interest wants all 10."
The nightmare numbers include the state's unemployment rate (12.6 percent)--it is higher than the nation's (9.9)--and the city's rate (13.5), which is higher than the state's. The city's long-term success depends on its schools, in many of which most of the children come from homes without fathers, and in some of which, Villaraigosa says, 40 percent of the children are in foster homes. He has little control over the school system and, anyway, unions oppose radical reforms. He would like to emulate the education reforms of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, a recent visitor to the mayor's residence, but, holding his fingers three inches apart to suggest the thickness of the standard contract with the teachers' union, Villaraigosa calls the union "the most powerful defender of the status quo."
The mayor's residence is near Wilshire Boulevard, which is named for a socialist who made and lost several fortunes before dying destitute. The life of Henry Wilshire is a cautionary tale for this city where the climate is usually Mediterranean and the fiscal climate is now Greek.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/11/2010 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
For 15 years Villaraigosa was an organizer for the Service Employees International Union and the city's teachers' union. Now he is trying to cope with, and partially undo, largesse for unionized public employees: "I have to sign the checks on the front, not just the back."
It's easy when you are using someone else's money. Unions have become a large part of our financial problems. See Greece 2010.
#3
Unions have a place. Without them, management/ownership abuses their power. When management is shackled or unions get too strong, the unions abuse their power. Let them both go to keep each other in check. Messy, but better than giving either unrestrained power.
#4
But that only applies when the management has an interest in balancing union demands, that is, maintaining their profitability. Government has no such interest, so accedes far too easily to union demands.
It is the paradox of the teachers' union that, while teachers should be "white collar", the States that pay them want them to be "blue collar", collectivized instead of professionalized.
Properly, teachers should be like doctors, in which their reputation and results determine their pay. But this would mean that teachers would have to be able to restrict membership in the teachers professional organization, so their pay could not be undercut by the market force of too many teachers. Again, the way that doctors do it.
Teachers could only teach if the professional organization licensed them. States definitely do not want this.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/11/2010 21:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
JohnQC - in Washington State - if you are a teacher you *will* join the union in order to ply your trade. You can opt out of the union but you still have to pay the dues.
Also you *will* contribute to the Democratic Party (via your dues) or you will *not* work as a teacher.
And they talk about Microsoft having a monopoly....
Personally I think that if unions are going to demand a seat at the table then they should assume some of the risk as well. A teacher molests a student - the UNION gets sued and of its found that the union knew the teacher was a pervert - their leadership can be held responsible - even serve time. Johnny can't read? Or a bad teacher or Principal the UNION forced the SD to take or keep hits a student - the UNION is liable.
As it is - the unions have all the power to dictate terms - but none of the liability.
Unions have their place - but not in the public sector where the public 'owns' the 'company'. And none of these giant interstate union organizations like SEIU or the AFL-CIO.
As more details emerge about the massive 2,700-page health overhaul law, even those who supported its passage are shocked by its sweeping implications and reach into every corner of our lives and society.
For example, small-business owners are telling members of Congress they are terrified about the risks the law presents to their ability to keep and hire workers -- imperiling the nation's already fragile economic recovery.
Employers with more than 50 workers could face big penalties even if they are trying to do the right thing by offering health insurance to their workers. For example, they could be fined $2,000 per worker if they fail to follow Washington's rules in providing "affordable" coverage.
Companies are required to calculate whether their health plans meet Washington's affordability test by determining each employee's household income, not just what they are paying the worker. To say this presents a significant challenge is an understatement. But if employers fail, they could face fines of $100,000 or more.
Larger, publicly traded companies face additional costs. When lawmakers created the Medicare drug benefit in 2003, they wanted to make sure that employers who already were providing prescription drug coverage to their retirees didn't drop them and shift the cost to taxpayers. They offered a tax break that was generous enough for employers to continue to provide the retiree coverage but still cheaper than having taxpayers foot the full bill.
Thanks to the new health reform law, employers lose part of that subsidy. According to the consulting firm Towers Watson, this means that corporations will take a $14 billion hit to their earnings.
Companies big and small face tax hits, fines, and huge risks associated with the health overhaul law. And they will face an avalanche of new paperwork requirements as well.
The law requires businesses to file a so-called "1099" tax form for any purchase from an individual or business that totals more than $600 a year. It's a new effort to catch tax cheats.
In the past, companies were required to file these forms to individuals such as unincorporated consultants. Under the new legislation, however, they must file a report for every purchase over $600. Just imagine: Companies will now have to send tax forms to Staples for a year's worth of office supplies, or to airlines when they buy tickets!
Amazingly, the law is so careless that Congress jeopardized coverage for itself! It says members of Congress must join their constituents in getting insurance through the health insurance exchanges states are required to create.
The exchanges, though, won't be up and running until 2014. So what is Congress going to do until then? The administration's personnel office said it is basically going to ignore the law and continue to provide coverage.
States are at risk, too. Page 466 of the law says states are liable not just for paying for health benefits for Medicaid recipients but also for ensuring provision of "the care and services themselves."
Those five words mean that states must guarantee that Medicaid recipients are seen by a doctor. Alan Levine, Louisiana's health secretary, says this "leaves every state vulnerable to a new wave of lawsuits any time someone cannot access a service." He says the added cost would be incalculable.
How could all this have happened?
The Senate bill never was meant to be final law. It was designed to get 60 votes out of the Senate, and then lawmakers would work with the House to draft a cleaner bill. But once Scott Brown won Massachusetts' special Senate election and the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority, they couldn't get another vote out of the Senate. So the only way to get a bill to the president's desk was to have the House pass the Senate bill as is.
Not surprisingly, as Americans learn more about the legislation, their opposition grows. A recent poll from Indiana University shows that 58% of Americans want the law repealed. Only 12% in a recent FOX News poll said they believed the law should be implemented as is.
As more problems emerge, even supporters of the measure could come to realize that it imposes huge new taxes, provides benefits to relatively few, cuts existing services, and imposes expensive mandates on virtually everyone. This law is growing more unpopular by the day, and for good reason.
#2
Come-on Darth, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...
Notice how they try to shift the blame on the Scott Brown win? Why if he hadn't win then we wouldn't be in this sorry mess....
And of course your right - they didn't even read the farking thing. Just sign on the dotted line. And now they find out they are the proud owners of worthless desert land in Nevada.
#3
It was never about healthcare. Progressives have been working toward this for nearly a century. This is their ultimate goal and many were willing to commit political suicide to enact this with the bet that it couldn't be undone. Others were so lacking in character they couldn't put resistence. But the Dems never counted on the Tea Party.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
05/11/2010 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And now we they find out we they are the proud owners of worthless desert land in Nevada.
#6
Employers with more than 50 workers could face big penalties even if they are trying to do the right thing by offering health insurance to their workers. For example, they could be fined $2,000 per worker if they fail to follow Washington's rules in providing "affordable" coverage. The way around that seems fairly simple. Employers offer no coverage, tell their employees their pay is being docked $2,000 to pay the government fine, if the employees don't like that, they are free to find other employment. My brother in MA is self-employed & has been paying the state fine (about $750) to NOT participate in MaxTaxCare.
#7
Since Insurance providers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions I can see most people opting to pay the $750 fine (rather than the $7-10K insurance) and simply sign up for insurance when they need it (i.e. after they are diagnosed with something serious). And then dropping out again when / if they are cured.
I wish I could get auto-insurance after an having an accident and have them cover it.
#8
CF, that's already happening in Massachusetts. Insurance companies are saddled with people signing up to get coverage for major medical only when they need it now.
#9
"But once Scott Brown won Massachusetts' special Senate election...the only way to get a bill to the president's desk was to have the House pass the Senate bill as is."
Bwwaahahahaha! This is great, now they're gonna blame it all on Scott Brown. Man, they're really grabbing at straws...keep it up guys, lookin good.
#11
"The administration's personnel office said it is basically going to ignore the law"
So what else is new?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/11/2010 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Beavis, thanks for your link, I found the article very interesting, as were its comments, one I liked a lot: there's no way to create a system that's foolproof. People with an sociopathic tendencies, including many corporate lawyers, are always going to find a way
#13
For example, small-business owners are telling members of Congress they are terrified about the risks the law presents to their ability to keep and hire workers -- imperiling the nation's already fragile economic recovery.
You get the feeling that the One is saying "Screw small business. We don't give a flip about their concerns. This is bigger. This is about my legacy. This is about getting a hold of the scrotum of business and squeezing hard."
#14
It's much worse than that John: a few large businesses are easily controlled; orders of magnitude more small ones not so much. This is the intentional deep-sixing of small business in favor of a more easily controlled marketplace.
The present Democratic Party have essentially morphed into mid 1930s style European Corporatists. The Republican Party is, sadly, merely a pale shadow of the Democratic Party; Corporatist-lite if you will.
I predict this will end badly. How's that for going out on a limb? ;)
Excerpt; Democrats will be hit much, much harder than Republicans. Even so, it would be a huge mistake to interpret the coming rebuke through a strictly ideological or partisan lens. Yet predictably, that's what many will do.
#2
Again, IMO ISLAMIST IRAN will prefer to stay on the geopol, PR defensive, + wait for a formal = full-fledged mil ground invasion by the US-ISRAEL. Iran will suppor the MilTerrs but let them do the actual hands-on fighting/combat agz US-Israel-Allied in international regions while it locally nuclearizes.
#1
A shining example of why Newsweek is going broke. There is so much wrong with this that even the lefties can see the faults.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/11/2010 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He co authored a book called "the wise men". It's a look at the early years of this century through Vietnam.It follows men who advised presidential power for the USA at critical times. very interesting........
The U.S. Navy had defeated a Spanish fleet at Manila Bay, and now the Americans were unintentional occupiers of a country that President McKinley said he could barely find on a map. The fighting in the Philippines dragged on for four more years and cost 4,000 men, roughly the same number we have lost so far in Iraq. There were atrocities on both sides in the long-forgotten counterinsurgency against the Filipinos, and for the first time Americans used an interrogation method called waterboarding.
#6
there was a feeling that we hadn't finished the job of getting rid of Saddam Hussein—I know I felt it.
I had a liberal friend tell me once that the senior Bush failed for not toppling Saddam in 1991. I informed him it wasn't part of the UN mandate, and he shut right up!
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/11/2010 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Wise Men by Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson is indeed an excellent book-- fair, thorough, lively and well-written. Evan Thomas would have been better off if he'd stayed out of the news business and stuck to writing history. I suspect that the end of Newsweek will serve to convince wirters of his talent to stay away from reporting-- where their biases are blatant but their writing's not strident enough to satisfy blog-tribalists' need for smirks 'n' sneers in short, minute-by-minute blasts-- and stick to very long analytical pieces and history.
Slow food prepared and consumed over hours vs. fast food in styrofoam consumed in a few seconds. Call it Slow Media, and charge for it.
#8
gorb, it took longer than that. The Spanish had a habit of claiming territory they had a presence in rather than control of. When they transferred the Philippines, they failed to mention that little technicality and America found itself in a second front in the southern islands with a second war to end slavery [and piracy] by the Muslims [Moros].
Jolo, 1 - 24 May 1905 and 6 - 8 March 1906 and 11 - 15 June 1913. In May 1905, March 1906, and June 1913, Regulars had to cope with disorders too extensive to be handled by the local constabulary and Philippine Scouts on the island of Jolo, a Moro stronghold. During May 1905 Pala and some of his followers were killed; the remainder, gathered in a volcanic crater, surrendered to American forces. On March 6, 7, and 8, 1906 the battle of Bud Dajo was fought to a successful conclusion by Regulars and in mid-June 1913 Moros at Bagsac were whipped.
There were influential, POLITICAL- + ECON-POWERFUL elements in US GOVT-SOCIETY whom didn't favor the new US Republic to expand towards the MIDWEST, towards the ROCKIES + WEST COAST, RIO GRANDE, LET ALONE INTO THE PACIFIC + CARIBBEAN, ETC. 'TWAS NO DIFFERENT BEFORE, AFTER THE SPANISH-AMER WAR = "SPLENDID LITTLE WAR" OR EVEN WORLD WAR ONE.
ALso, IIRC SPAIN was offic the World's de facto #2 after VICTORIANA = VICTORIAN BRITAIN/BRIT EMPIRE, wid a EURO-AGGRESSIVE BISMARCK-LED IMPERIAL GERMANY as new #3 after former #3 FRANCE'S DEFEAT in the FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR [Napoleon III]. Britain gener stayed #1 up to WW2 despite gradually devol towards geopol weakness, espec after the bloodshed of WW1, Rise of Bolshevism, + 1929 Wall Street Crash [Great Depression = Worldwide]. Post-1918 the US was #2 until the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.
#12
lotp: I noticed I didn't use preview and what I said was a little botched--preview is your friend. All along I thought the little Mountain Cur was marking his boundaries. Could be that is what the pee-mail says. Dogs are interesting critters. Love em. :)
If people are not willing to fight wars, they will have to accept living under tyranny.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
As more details emerge about the massive 2,700-page health overhaul law, even those who supported its passage are shocked by its sweeping implications and reach into every corner of our lives and society.
