Feckless POLS want $13 BILLION more from Massachusetts Taxpayers

Gov. Deval (Spend-It-All) Patrick came out with his $13 BILLION tax wish list.....it is no surprise that there is no suggestion of cutting gold plated benefits & lifetime everything for state Hacks......This idiot who is in charge of our state is clueless - His only way to improve things is to impoverish the taxpayers while lining the pockets of Union Hacks and his buddies who will gain contracts for transportation improvements.

I have two words for you Deval, and they ain't "Happy Birthday"

Take your plan and stick it - We need to stop putting it all on the taxpayers and stop spending like there is a bottomless supply of taxpayers' $$$ - Really.


Taxpayers to pick up the tab for MassDOT's $13B transportation plan

(FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - The Massachusetts Department of Transportation has released a long-awaited plan to invest $13 billion in the state's aging transportation system over 10 years; however, in order to create the additional revenue, the report recommends certain tax increases, as well as additional fees.

The Department of Transportation initially planned to release the report earlier in the month, but Gov. Deval Patrick said he told officials that "a little more work" was needed after reviewing a draft version.

"What's plain as day is that we have to make choices. We can choose to invest in ourselves, to invest in a growth strategy that has been proven time and again to work. Or we can choose to do nothing. But let us be clear: doing nothing is a choice, too," said Gov. Patrick. "And that choice has consequences. It means longer commutes, cuts in services, larger fare and fee increases, and a continuation of the self-defeating economics of cutting off large parts of our population from opportunity and growth."

The plan calls for $5.2 billion over ten years in road, bridge and highway repair projects in order to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges and ease congestion on major arteries throughout the state. Another $3.8 billion will go to existing transit services, and $275 million for Registry and airport maintenance.

Officials said $1.02 billion will be spent annually on a number of high-impact transportation projects. Transportation officials said they hope the projects create thousands of jobs and spur economic development across the state.

The plan is also designed to address budget deficits at the MBTA, MassDOT and various other regional transportation agencies.

According to the report, the suggested revenue options, essentially certain tax hikes and fees, were proposed by members of the public and other stake holders over the last year.
"We have spent the last year engaging our customers, the business community and various stakeholders in a conversation about what kind of transportation system they want," said MassDOT Secretary and CEO Richard A. Davey. "What is clear is that we can't afford the system we have today, much less the system we all want. This plan clearly articulates our vision for a 21st-Century Transportation system and the steps we must take to achieves that."

The revenue recommendations include an increase in the gas tax, payroll tax, sales tax or income tax; a new green fee on vehicle registrations; a vehicle miles traveled tax; regular and modest fare, fee and toll increases; and new tolling mechanisms. The plan also assumes that tolls are maintained on the Western portion of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Officials said money will go toward helping MassDOT and other regional transit authorities end their practice of paying for general operating costs with loans, a practice that costs MassDOT about $1.76 in interest for each dollar borrowed.

In order to end the practice of borrowing and inflated interest, the MassDOT will receive $371 million during the 2014 fiscal year and $4.4 billion over 10 years. The Regional Transit Authorities will receive $100 million during the 2014 fiscal year and $1.1 billion over 10 years.

Without new revenues to be generated by additional taxes and fees on state residents, the MassDOT Board of Directors will need to cut service at the MBTA and RTAs and significantly increase fares in order to approve a balanced budget for Fiscal Year 2014, which begins July 1

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/20581947/massdot-lays-out-13b-10-year-transportation-plan#ixzz2I0BSGbnu

" All politics is local" - How the Greedy Pols on FED, STATE & LOCAL level want only one thing - All of your $$$$

" All Politics is local" - Thomas Phillip "Tip" O'Neill, Jr.- Speaker of the House 1977-1987

Tip O'Neill knew that everything that happened impacted people on the local level as that is where things in America happen.  The idiots inside the Beltway like to think they are the center of the country but they are as thick as bag full of hammers.

The enclosed story is from the Boston Globe, i.e. the NYTIMES/BOSTON GLOBE/DEM Mouthpiece.

Here is the sysnopsis of the story.  The city of NEWTON, MA is one of the more well off areas in the greater Boston area.  You can pretty much surmise that if you live in Newton, you are doing pretty well.  Housing values are high and people see it as one of the nicest places to live.

The story covers the issue that the Mayor and his employees want more $$$ from the citizens.  They are asking for an override of the limit for how much they can grab out of people's wallets.  They will put this up to a vote in March but you can imagine what the turnout for a city election like this will be.  Very low despite the nature of the issue.

Bottom line - The City takes in $312 MILLION dollars a year - They still need more.  Not like they could cut expenses of gold plated bennies for town hacks.....no, no, no - we must keep those town workers in a comfy lifestyle even if it takes every nickel we can squeeze out of the taxpayers.

Newton, MA is not the only town doing this - many others are doing the exact same thing.  They saw the Idiot in the White House pull off his spendathon of $6 TRILLION Dollars over the last 4 years and they are saying, " ME TOO !!!  ME TOO !!"

The average taxpayer in Newton will pay $8006 p/yr to the city or $667 a month.  For that money, you could pay for a brand new PORSCHE 911....but no, you will be paying for the retirement of the local town hacks even while you have no access to lifetime pension.....

These HACKS make a thief like Bernie Madoff look like pikers.....They will be laughing all the way to the bank while they cripple the citizens who live in our town and cities.  Oh yeah, the State Hacks and FED workers are lined up for the same thing too.....all want as much of your money as they can get.

Thanks Voters - by re-electing the FOOL who conned his way into the White House, you gave the HACKS on the FED, STATE & LOCAL level a green light to pour it on.....They will not be happy until they fill all their pockets with as much of our $$$ as they can grab.

---------------------------------------------

Newton voters will likely get to vote on a $11.4 million tax increase in March

By Deirdre Fernandes

Boston Globe Staff / December 1, 2012          

Newton Alderman Anthony Salvucci slowly unfurled from his seat, stood up, and gave a rare speech to his colleagues Thursday night.
 

“Don’t sweat it,” the elder statesman of the Board of Aldermen instructed the group. “You people are all sweating, and don’t. Don’t.”
 

Salvucci was urging the board to get behind Mayor Setti Warren’s proposed overrides of Proposition 2½. He said he understood that some aldermen are worried that the requested $11.4 million in new property taxes wouldn’t cover the cost of the city’s projects; that others are troubled by recent construction projects that came in far higher than initial estimates; and that many are anxious about the city’s other needs. But, he said, the board needed to get the request for a tax increase in front of voters so some of the city’s needs — such as new schools, a fire station, and road and sidewalk repairs — could be met.
 

Many of his colleagues agreed. After nearly three hours of debate, aldermen moved the override requests out of committee, setting up a vote by the full board Monday on whether to put them on a March ballot.
 

Claire Sokoloff, the School Committee’s chairwoman, said she is optimistic the district’s overcrowding and building problems would be addressed.
 

“The overwhelming majority of board members understand the need for putting this override to the voters and seeing that it will pass,” she said after the meeting. “It’s a good balance between providing needed improvements to our schools and the city, while being respectful of the reality that these are tough financial times.”
 

Warren has proposed three ballot initiatives to help pay for $143.5 million in projects. His plan calls for a permanent tax increase to provide $8.4 million for road repairs, four police officers, new teachers to handle the school system’s growing student population, expansion and renovation of Zervas Elementary, replacement of the Newton Centre fire station and Fire Department headquarters, and a new communications building.
 

The mayor is also proposing two temporary tax increases, totaling $3 million and to be paid off over roughly 30 years, to cover rebuilding the Angier and Cabot elementary schools.

If all three are approved, officials said, annual taxes on a house with the city’s median assessment, $686,000, would go up by about $343, to $8,006.
 

“It’s not perfect, I do have some issues,” said Alderman Jay Harney, but added, “This gets us to where we need to be.”
 

Alderman Lisle Baker, however, suggested that more items should be included in the override proposals, since the city does not ask voters to approve higher taxes very often.

Other aldermen have been concerned that the estimates for the projects may be off, and that after the Newton North High project — which ballooned from $141 million to nearly $191.5 million — residents won’t be forgiving.
 

The accuracy question gained more traction last week when estimates for an Oak Hill fire station project, not included in the override package, rose by 46 percent, going from $2.8 million to $4.1 million.
 

The news followed on the heels of Day Middle School expansion costs rising by millions, as well as the projected cost of Carr School renovations growing from roughly $9 million to $12.7 million. Neither of those are part of the override.
 

Alderwoman Cheryl Lappin said she agrees an override needs to be on the ballot, but for it to succeed the board’s members will all need to be “out there promoting it . . . and we need to have confidence.”
 

Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan said he hasn’t decided whether to support the override. “I am bemused that everybody is damning it with faint praise, but saying it should go ahead.”
 

Maureen Lemieux, Newton’s chief financial officer, said the administration has tried to be conservative in projecting the costs of the override projects, and suggested the additional expenses for some of the recent construction projects can be covered by savings elsewhere.
 

As for the projects covered by the override, Lemieux said, the city’s budget should be able to absorb marginal increases, should they occur.
 

If the full board approves the override proposals Monday, the questions would be placed on the ballot in a March 12 special election.
 

 

Public-school employees have doubled in 40 years while academic results have stagnated...

Americans don't understand how the education system has been rigged to create more high-paying jobs ( mainly administrators and staff people) than there ever was in the past.

This means higher costs and more pensions for educators and their connected political friends.

Schools are not educating our children to the proper level.  Some do well but the majority of kids do not get the level of education that you or I did 20-30 years ago.  We are over paying and getting less back for our tax dollars.  They keep telling us that there will be less and less people working in the future as the population ages, so why would we need so many more people to work in our schools??

If anything, the number of people needed to work in schools should be going down as the number of children educated slows with our aging population.   That is logical but when it comes to public unions, teachers and education, nothing is logical.

Here is what was written in the Wall Street Journal.  I bet there was plenty of educators on summer break ( something no one else in America gets) howling mad at seeing this in print.


America Has Too Many Teachers
Public-school employees have doubled in 40 years while student enrollment has increased by only 8.5%—and academic results have stagnated..

By ANDREW J. COULSON - Wall Street Journal

President Obama said last month that America can educate its way to prosperity if Congress sends money to states to prevent public school layoffs and "rehire even more teachers." Mitt Romney was having none of it, invoking "the message of Wisconsin" and arguing that the solution to our economic woes is to cut the size of government and shift resources to the private sector. Mr. Romney later stated that he wasn't calling for a reduction in the teacher force—but perhaps there would be some wisdom in doing just that.
 
Cato Institute scholar Andrew Coulson on how public school employment has soared over the past 40 years even as student enrollment has flat-lined.
.
Since 1970, the public school workforce has roughly doubled—to 6.4 million from 3.3 million—and two-thirds of those new hires are teachers or teachers' aides. Over the same period, enrollment rose by a tepid 8.5%. Employment has thus grown 11 times faster than enrollment. If we returned to the student-to-staff ratio of 1970, American taxpayers would save about $210 billion annually in personnel costs.

Or would they? Stanford economist Eric Hanushek has shown that better-educated students contribute substantially to economic growth. If U.S. students could catch up to the mathematics performance of their Canadian counterparts, he has found, it would add roughly $70 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 80 years. So if the additional three million public-school employees we've hired have helped students learn, the nation may be better off economically.

To find out if that's true, we can look at the "long-term trends" of 17-year-olds on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress. These tests, first administered four decades ago, show stagnation in reading and math and a decline in science. Scores for black and Hispanic students have improved somewhat, but the scores of white students (still the majority) are flat overall, and large demographic gaps persist. Graduation rates have also stagnated or fallen. So a doubling in staff size and more than a doubling in cost have done little to improve academic outcomes.

Nor can the explosive growth in public-school hiring be attributed to federal spending on special education. According to the latest Census Bureau data, special ed teachers make up barely 5% of the K-12 work force.
The implication of these facts is clear: America's public schools have warehoused three million people in jobs that do little to improve student achievement—people who would be working productively in the private sector if that extra $210 billion were not taxed out of the economy each year.
We have already tried President Obama's education solution over a time period and on a scale that he could not hope to replicate today. And it has proven an expensive and tragic failure.

To avoid Greece's fate we must create new, productive private-sector jobs to replace our unproductive government ones. Even as a tiny, mostly nonprofit niche, American private education is substantially more efficient than its public sector, producing higher graduation rates and similar or better student achievement at roughly a third lower cost than public schools (even after controlling for differences in student and family characteristics).

By making it easier for families to access independent schools, we can do what the president's policies cannot: drive prosperity through educational improvement. More than 20 private-school choice programs already exist around the nation. Last month, New Hampshire legislators voted to override their governor's veto and enact tax credits for businesses that donate to K-12 scholarship organizations. Mr. Romney has supported such state programs. President Obama opposes them.

While America may have too many teachers, the greater problem is that our state schools have squandered their talents on a mass scale. The good news is that a solution is taking root in many states.

Mr. Coulson directs the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom and is author of "Market Education: The Unknown History" (Transaction, 1999).

A version of this article appeared July 9, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: America Has Too Many Teachers.

GREED killed the American Unions

The Atlantic Magazine wrote a piece titled " Who Killed American Unions??"

The article was not very compelling....it focused on all aspects other than the key issue.

The one part of the liberal whining that goes on in this article is they didn't mention the key reason why Unions have cratered...

GREED.

Yes, GREED.  The Unions and their members got GREEDY.  That's what killed them.

Now, I understand and agree they are not the only ones who got greedy.  CEOs and other getting obscene pay packages, stock insiders pillaging the economy and causing chaos, etc. etc.  I see it and agree that they have caused as many issues for the American Economy as the Unions.

But, the question is " Who Killed American Unions??" - The main culprit is the Unions themselves.

The last three and half years have accelerated their demise but it started way before that.....
GREEDY UNION Members and their fat arse bosses used their muscle to bully and batter companies like GM, Ford & Chrysler into ridiculous labor agreements.

Public Employee Unions gamed the political system and conceived ridiculous laws and agreements that allow public employees to retire on sky high pensions inflated by overtime and into which many have never paid a cent.  They don't have any care that the agreements were  faulty and unsustainable.  it didn't matter that they got paid for standing down on the job or doing little.  They got the agreements put in place and even if it bankrupts the town, they want the money.

Union Leaders lined their pockets with dues paid by the members and did little other than make themselves rich on the backs of the workers.  They decided that they were entitled to the same type of compensation as those who ran the businesses.....GREED.  More and more was their only goal.

This is what killed the Unions and why today, they only represent a minor fraction of all workers.  Unions were needed when there were no laws to protect workers but in the last 40 years, the Unions became only about paying their workers and the Union Bosses as much as they could extort from the companies and government.

Now the companies have had enough.  The cost of a new car produced in Detroit had almost $10K cost tacked on to it to provide incredible huge pay & benefits to assembly line workers.  The added cost is borne by every person who bought a vehicle from the big three, while others like Toyota set up factories in Tennessee without Unions.  The new factories were able to produced excellent vehicles and cheaper.

That helped put the Big Three teetering on the edge....The market was cornered by cheaper, leaner, better.

Now, Towns and States are seeing the light.  They know that they have been had and the voters are pushing back.  Taxpayers have had enough. Voters have started fixing what has been known for many years.  It wasn't just enough to earn good money, these Union types needed to earn MORE.  And it doesn't bother them at all that it is costing others services or extra costs tacked on to things they want.

It is all about them and their need to satisfy their Greed.

That's what killed the Unions and for the author of the article in the Atlantic Magazine to miss that completely shows there still are people who don't want to acknowledge reality.

Reality is the Unions caused their own demise.  Their GREED and their need to be GREEDY to the detriment of all others.

And the Mass Media wonders why people aren't siding with the Unions....it is because they see the wanton GREED with their own eyes and recognize it for what it is - shameful.

CLUELESS NY TIMES STAFF might have to take pension downgrade...The horror.



Take a listen to the bucketheads at the NY TIMES whine about the possibility that they might have to take a reduction in pension benefits. The horror !!


Here's a bite of reality for you Mr. Media-Elite. Welcome to the new economy that the Democrats & dear leader Mr. Obama have given us...Share YOUR wealth Mr. Newspaper Elite !!. Here is what the rest of us have known for the past three years as we watched the DEMS spend us $5 TRILLION dollars further into debt.


Granted, the other side is not much better but they haven't figured out how to wreck things like Pelosi, Reed and Obama did in three years. These ingrates will get their pensions, just not a life-time of their full salary. That is reserved only for Municipal workers, State & Federal employees. The rest of us will have to get by on working in normal retirement age, add in what little social security is left and anything else we can do.


To work for a major newspaper and to act this clueless/entitled/elite is the sign of how badly the media does it's job. If they couldn't figure this crap out until now, how much other shite they write about is wrong also ?


Russel Mead lays it out in true Schadefreude...enjoy.


To quote John McClean from DIE HARD, " WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL..."






At The NYT: Clueless Blue Deer Meets Onrushing Truck
Russell Mead - PJ Media


Schadenfreude alert: readers, and especially those who don’t much like the New York Times, should make sure they are not eating soup or holding hot liquids before viewing the video below. Uncontrollable gales of laughter stemming from excessive levels of schadenfreude may cause spilling and staining.


New York Times staffers, like suffering proles all over the world, belong to a labor union, and over the years the union has negotiated a very comfy defined benefit retirement plan. The staffers love the plan.


But economic reality is intruding. Times management, perhaps reading the coverage in its own pages about the companies and cities going bankrupt due to unsustainable union-bargained pension systems, wants to make a change. It wants to offer a defined contribution plan, instead. Workers and the company pay into a 401(k) plan, workers invest it, and when they retire, that is the amount they have towards their income.


It’s an entitled blue deer, meet onrushing truck kind of moment. The Guild is talking about a strike, and an array of Times staffers, including some famous bylines that are well known in news circles, worry aloud that the new plan could make them eat cat food and sleep in boxes on the street in old age. (Or late middle age, anyway; not one staffer talks about working past 65.)


Nobody in the video talks about the changes in the news business that threatens to drive the Times into a deep dive. Nobody talks about the prospect of future significant staff cuts if costs can’t be contained. None of them discuss the incongruity between their own naive sense of entitlement and what is going on in the cities, companies and countries they cover.


They just want the money.


Some writers allude to the prospect of leaving the paper if the pension change goes through, but a quick check of the newspaper business suggests they don’t have all that many options. Certainly with the exception of a handful of superstars the New York Times would have less trouble replacing its current staff than the current staff would have in replacing their jobs. And if those new jobs are in journalism, good luck finding a company with a generous defined benefit pension plan.


I sympathize with the Times staff about living in tougher economic conditions, but that is what people are adjusting to all over the world; I’m not sure what gives them an exemption. Newspaper reporters of all people should have seen this coming long ago, and have made savings and retirement plans on the assumption that their defined benefit plan would be going the way of the passenger pigeon and sooner rather than later.


If anything, their feelings of regret and chagrin should be tinged with at least a soupçon of relief. In the end, a defined benefit plan is only as solid as the company behind it, and given the turmoil on today’s media landscape it’s not at all clear where the Times will be or how it will be restructuring its debt 20 years from now. The good thing about a defined contribution plan is that you don’t lose the money if your ex-employer goes broke.


For readers, this is a fascinating and revealing glimpse inside the Times bubble. I am not sure which is more disconcerting; the deeply embedded sense of blue entitlement so palpably on display or the poor political judgement that led the union brass to think that releasing this video to the public would be good PR. Either way it serves as a powerful illustration of just how fundamentally out of touch many of the people working at America’s most famous newspaper have become.


I like and admire many of the people who write for the Times. Some of them I have known for years and, happily, the judgment and sensibility behind this video doesn’t characterize everyone who works there. But I suspect that most viewers around the world are going to find this video funny and revealing rather than heartfelt and convincing.

" The Unions say you're not paying enough taxes.."

The Unions say you're not paying enough taxes as they want more revenue for their union members. What world are these morons living in that they feel that they can solve our problems by grabbing more money from the taxpayers?

Cut spending and you'll see there is plenty of $$$ already. It is wasteful spending and allowing state & local employees to have huge wage increases that is a huge part of the problems faced by our state & local governments.

Look carefully when it comes time to vote and if a candidate is inline with these fools, vote them out. An injection of reality is needed and that had to start with putting the brakes on wasteful spending by those who benefit from raising taxes.



Unions push for state income tax hike
Labor and advocacy groups press for increasing state income tax to raise $1.37 billion.
By David Riley
wickedlocal.com
Posted Apr 09, 2012


BOSTON — Here’s a question for taxpayers as the deadline to file income taxes approaches quickly: Do you think Uncle Sam and Beacon Hill took too much, too little or just the right-sized bite out of your paychecks this year?

A coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups believes Massachusetts falls in the “too little” camp, at least for upper-income brackets.

The Campaign for Our Communities calls for raising the state income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 5.95 percent. The proposal also would tax investment income at 8.95 percent, up from 5.3 percent for most investments, but down from 12 percent for short-term capital gains.

Supporters said legislation they back also would hike exemptions to protect low- and middle-income taxpayers, while shielding seniors and the disabled from the higher investment rate.

Cuts to crucial services and annual struggles to balance state and local finances spurred the campaign, predating the recent recession, backers said. They pointed to cuts to mental health and senior programs, the MBTA’s looming budget gap and the proposed closing of Taunton State Hospital, among other things.

“We just do not have a revenue system that is bringing in enough revenue,” said Andi Mullin, director of Campaign for Our Communities. “That is true when the economy is good, and it’s particularly true when the economy is bad.”

Supporters said the changes would raise an additional $1.37 billion in tax revenue.

Cuts also have stretched town, city and school budgets thin, supporters said. Government cannot maintain quality public services while addressing budget gaps through cuts alone, they argued.

“It’s all about getting more money into our communities to fund what we view as essential public services,” said Jim Durkin, spokesman for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 93, a union that has endorsed the campaign.

But House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, R-North Reading, said taxes are too high already.

Jones sponsored legislation this year to cut the state’s income tax rate to 5 percent by 2013. He said the measure would fulfill a successful 2000 ballot question calling for the state to cut the income tax from 5.95 percent to 5 percent over three years.

The Legislature in 2002 froze the rate at 5.3 percent and set targets for revenue growth under which the rate could drop further. The rate dipped to 5.25 percent this year.

Jones has sponsored similar bills in the past.

“I’ve sponsored it simply because I think we have an obligation to fulfill what the voters said they wanted to do,” he said


Neither effort is likely to advance this year. The Joint Committee on Revenue sent Jones’ bill to study, a move that usually dooms legislation for the rest of the session.

The Campaign for Our Communities counts local teachers unions among its supporters, including those in Arlington, Bedford, Boston, Cambridge, Dedham, Fall River and Weymouth.

Paul Toner, president of the Mass. Teachers Association, said budget crunches have led to rising class sizes in some districts and cuts to arts, technology and student support programs. More schools have imposed fees to fund busing and other programs, “increasingly putting the burden on families,” Toner said.

The Massachusetts Senior Action Council, which also backs the campaign, views raising the income tax rates as a way to ensure funding for senior services without competing against other legitimate interests, Executive Director Carolyn Villers said.

“Rather than a bigger piece of the pie,” she said, “we need a bigger pie.”

Jones said he fundamentally disagrees. Hiking the income tax would be a “total, 180-degree about-face” from legislative leaders’ calls to avoid raising taxes, he said.

Over 279,000 Federal Workers Owe $3.4 Billion in Back Taxes....

Tax time has rolled around again. At least for you & me. There are far too many others who because they work within the US Government, see taxes as something for the "little people" to worry about.

The figures below should make you as upset as I feel. We could use the $3.4 Billion owed right about now, and not for more wasteful spending, but for things that benefit all like improved infrastructure, defense and approving
no-brainers like the Keystone Pipeline which will assist us in being more energy independent.

All I know is if you or I owed taxes like this, the IRS would be more than happy to assess us with a large penalty and other measures designed to get us to pay up soon....so why is it any different for the 279,000 who work for the taxpayers????

Over 279,000 Federal Workers Owe $3.4 Billion in Back Taxes

Over 279,000 federal workers and retirees owed more than $3.4 billion in back income taxes in 2010 (up from $3.3 billion in 2009, $3.0 billion in 2008, and $2.7 billion in 2007).

The cabinet departments with the largest percentages of employee/retiree tax deadbeats are:

Housing & Urban Development: 3.89%
Education: 3.88%
Army: 3.83%
Veterans Affairs: 3.78%
Commerce: 3.54%
Health & Human Services: 3.51%
Defense: 3.19%
Air Force: 3.11%
Navy: 3.05%
State: 2.94%

Other departments and agencies:

U.S. Office of Government Ethics: 6.49%
Federal Reserve Board: 4.86%
U.S. House of Representatives: 4.24%
U.S. Senate: 3.08%
SEC: 2.50%
U.S. Tax Court: 2.25%
Treasury Department: 0.96% (the lowest delinquency rate among cabinet departments)

The SEIU supports re-electing the President, allowing them greater access to taxpayers $$$ and more waste

Birds of a feather flocking together...It is no secret that President Obama has provided Billions of tax dollars to his union pals. Money that didn't create jobs, only fattened the coffers of his political allies. The same unions that support the OWS crowd who wants to " redistribute wealth", i.e. take it from others who earn it. The Unions have been doing that for years.

While the idea of bonuses for failing banks offends many, the idea of the unions getting more control over workers is equally offensive. Union membership is down to 12% of all workers because the Unions are there to only support the union, not the workers. The Union Leaders are no different than the businesses who they rail against. They take union dues and spend it to prop up feckless pols like President Obama, who by all measures is a failure. In that manner, they spend workers money to fund political campaigns for Pols who supply access to larger shares of our tax dollars.

The President doesn't deserve re-election and his Union thug pals need to be sent a message at the same time. Voters know that the system has been rigged in the union's favor and that's why the POLS that the unions support will be voted out. Unions served a purpose in the past, but now only exist to take taxpayers money, fatten their own coffers and drive the cost of good & services up.


Service employees union to boost efforts for Obama
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press – 17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Service Employees International Union endorsed President Barack Obama's re-election bid on Wednesday, saying it would deploy its formidable political machine earlier and on a wider scale than it did four years ago.

SEIU President Mary Kay Henry said the union plans to reach out to all 2.1 million members by Labor Day and focus on getting more Hispanic and black voters to the polls.

"We're trying to do it on a scale that we've never done before," she said.

The politically powerful union is the latest labor organization to jump in with an early endorsement of the president, following the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and the National Education Association. It could signal even broader campaign spending by labor groups, which poured about $400 million to help elect Obama in 2008.

The SEIU is starting early, in part, because of reports that some Obama supporters are less enthusiastic than they were four years ago, Henry said. But while some union leaders have expressed disappointment with Obama's commitment to create jobs and willingness to back the union agenda, the SEIU has remained a steadfast supporter.

One of Obama's earliest backers in 2008, the SEIU spent about $60 million to help him win the presidential race. That led the union to become an influential voice in forming administration policy, particularly on Obama's health care overhaul plan. Former SEIU president Andy Stern has been one of the most frequent White House guests and is a member of Obama's debt commission.

Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, welcomed the endorsement, saying the SEIU and Obama "share many common goals,"....

What world do these State of Massachusetts employees live in ? Pension fund still offering bonuses

A friend who does mental health counseling has a line he uses when he runs into someone who is saying or doing something that seems divorced from reality -

" What color is the sky in your world ?"

The State of Massachusetts Pension Fund Agency must have a sky that is green, the same as the bonuses they will be helping themselves to this year. The fund lost a total of $5 Billion dollars over the last three year but the managers and staff will reap thousands of dollars in bonuses. In any other professional job, if you were managing other people's money and lost $5 Billion, you'd be out of a job. Not here in Hack-o-ramaville. The fools on Beacon Hill will hand them the extra cash when they are already among some of the highest paid employees in the state.

These managers were criticized by David J. Holway, president of the National Association of Government Employees, the union that represents 22,000 state, local, and county workers in Massachusetts. When a Union Leader is calling you greedy, you know you have gone pretty deep into the muck.

Rome burns and our POLS fiddle....Is it any wonder why people have lost faith in those who are supposed to be public servants as they have lined their pockets at the expense of all others and have no shame at all about what they are doing?


Pension fund still offering bonuses
Agency lost money over review period
By Frank Phillips Boston Globe - November 08, 2011

At a time when few public employees are getting raises, the agency that manages the state’s pension fund has earmarked more than a quarter of a million dollars for staff bonuses, including a possible $33,000 payment to the executive director, according to internal documents.

The bonuses, awarded through a performance-based compensation system adopted four years ago, are tied to a three-year period ending in June. During that time, the fund, which started at $50.6 billion, suffered deep losses before rebounding to $45.6 billion.

The compensation is based on investment benchmarks set by the Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) board and not entirely on the fluctuating value of the fund.

The total amount of the bonuses is $267,328, most of which has already been paid. That represents 11.1 percent of the total staff salaries, according to documents obtained by the Globe, and comes just months after the agency handed out $152,000 in raises to its 25-member staff.

The agency’s top two executives will receive their extra pay over two years, a total of 14 percent if the fund meets benchmarks for one more fiscal year.

Executive director Michael G.Trotsky, who is paid $245,000 a year, will receive $33,238.

Similarly, the agency’s chief investment officer, Stanley P. Mavromates Jr., who has the same salary, will collect $34,780. Trotsky has only worked at the agency since August 2010, or less than a third of the period covered by the three years that bonuses are based on.

State Treasurer Steven Grossman, who chairs the PRIM board, said the agency is reviewing whether to continue the controversial incentive compensation system, which also awarded bonuses in 2008. He said he will await judgment until the board’s compensation committee, which was created just after he took office in January, completes its review. The staff has not had raises since 2006.

But he said the central argument in support of the pay system is that PRIM must consider the competition it faces from the private financial world to attract and keep top talent.

“Recruiting and retention of top flight managers is a major issue,’’ Grossman said. “This is not Wall Street. Anyone who wants to make Wall Street money should go to Wall Street - or State Street. We have to consider the importance of recruiting and retaining the most talented people we can find.’’

But some of those who received extra pay have little to do with investment policy.

For example, Trotsky’s secretary, Samantha Wong, got a $4,828 bonus. She has only worked at the agency for little more than a year. She also received a 3.3 percent raise. Another administrative assistant, Alyssa Smith, saw her $44,000 salary increase to $54,000, a 22 percent hike, along with a $4,884 bonus.

Trotsky said both women’s responsibilities had been expanded.

The bonuses come at a time when the public debate, both here and across the country, has focused on widening income gaps, large corporate payouts, and the economic struggles facing the middle class. Massachusetts has seen thousands of teachers, public safety officers, and others laid off or their benefits slashed because state and local governments are making sharp budget cuts.

“These people must be living in some sort of bubble,’’ said David J. Holway, president of the National Association of Government Employees, the union that represents 22,000 state, local, and county workers in Massachusetts.

“For these highly paid individuals to have a payment scheme that gives them huge bonuses for their performance is totally outrageous. Obviously, they haven’t gone by Occupy Boston to see how people are feeling about how the rich are getting richer and the working families are struggling.’’

He said his union is demanding that Grossman rescind the policy.

Trotsky defended the bonus system, saying the pension fund had its second best year ever in the fiscal year that ended in June, in terms of its asset growth. He also said that the fund, when compared to other large public funds nationally, is in the top third in terms of performance, but is in the bottom quarter in terms of pay.

He said paying this amount of money in bonuses to generate high returns is money well spent.

Under the bonus system, pension fund employees can collect bonuses amounting to 30 to 40 percent of their salaries if they meet or exceed benchmarks over a three-year period. The last time the fund gave out bonuses was in September 2008, based on the three-year period ending the previous June 30. At that time, the fund was valued at $50.6 billion. It dropped to $37.6 billion the following year and then rebounded slightly to $41.2 billion by June 2010.

Under the incentive compensation plan, the bonuses kick in when the fund’s performance exceeds the returns of the investment indexes that reflect the mix of the pension fund’s assets. If the decline in the fund’s value is less than the indexes, the agency’s staff can earn bonuses according to a specific performance scale. But if the indexes are not met, the employees do not get the extra money, even if the fund’s assets increase.

The plan was devised by PRIM’s former executive director Michael Travaglini, who argued that the system promoted value rather than conservative investment strategies. He quit his post in 2010 to join a Chicago investment firm when the Legislature appeared ready to sharply curb the performance bonuses. He had earned a $68,000 bonus in 2008. He said he wanted to go to the private sector and make more money to provide for his family

His departure came in the midst of a political advertising campaign by the Republican Governors Association aimed at Timothy P. Cahill, then state treasurer and an independent candidate for governor.

The ads attacked Cahill for his role as chairman of the PRIM board when it approved large bonuses despite steep losses in 2008.

100000 Massachusetts voters want a referendum on teacher's job performance - The MASS teacher's union? Not so much.....

Wow, shocker.

Over 100000 Massachusetts Voters feel we need to evaluate Teachers like anyone else - based on Performance. The Massachusetts Teacher's Union says "No" and vows to fight it in court.

Our schools have ranked as failing in properly educating our children for years. We have fallen behind the other industrial countries and rank well behind China and most of Europe. The answer to this is to evaluate Teachers on performance, just like any other professional.

100000 Voters think it is time to put the measure on the ballot. Allow people to vote as we pay the bill.

Freedom, democracy - one man, one vote. The Teacher's Union's response ?? See you in court. They have vowed to fight this as they have a perfect deal - they can keep on failing our children and collecting pay & benefits for life as they have no evaluation process and that suits them fine.

Here's today's lesson for the cement-heads at the MTA - Let the Voters speak as that is what our country is founded on. The Taxpayers pay your salary and deserve a say in how our children are educated. Your rigged game is coming to an end and none too soon.

Referendum on teacher effectiveness tops 100,000 signatures
By Michael Norton and Kyle Cheney
State House News Service
Posted Oct 21, 2011 @ 09:56 AM

BOSTON — A group pressing for a ballot law that would force schools to prioritize teacher effectiveness over seniority in hiring, layoff, and transfer decisions says it has amassed more than 100,000 voter signatures, but the state’s largest teacher’s union is gearing up to fight the proposal in court.

In a fundraising email circulated this week, Stand For Children Executive Director Jason Williams said the signatures had been collected in one month and asserted that the initiative would “ensure that every child in every classroom across the Commonwealth is being led by an excellent teacher.”

The announcement puts supporters of the ballot effort well ahead of the pace necessary to clear the next hurdle to placing the proposal before voters. Proponents must gather 68,911 signatures – most successful groups gather thousands of extra signatures to ensure they survive challenges – by mid-November.

While the organization’s Great Teachers Great Schools campaign looks to mobilize voters and tie their proposal to efforts to close achievement gaps between students from high-income and low-income families, the Massachusetts Teachers Association has ripped the plan as an effort to limit bargaining rights, diminish the role of seniority and experience in personnel decisions, and preclude part-time teachers from attaining professional status.

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is charged with reviewing ballot questions to ensure they comply with legal criteria, certified the teacher evaluation proposal in August, clearing the way for advocates to launch their signature drive. But the MTA argues that the proposal should never come before voters because it violates laws governing the proper form of ballot questions.

“We’ll definitely be challenging the legitimacy of the initiative in the courts,” said Paul Toner, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association. “We respectfully disagree with the attorney general’s decision to go forward. We really believe it’s an abuse of the ballot initiative process.”

Toner said the initiative affects the power of the courts, which is forbidden by the laws governing ballot questions. He said that the question also appears to address “multiple issues” rather than a single, narrowly tailored policy concern.

“These are major policy issues that should be done by being discussed and deliberated through the Legislature,” he said. “Our intention is to go all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court on the issue.”

The union encouraged its members not to sign the petition if asked to by a signature collector and will fight the plan if it reaches the ballot. Noting new teacher evaluation rules were approved statewide on June 28, the union called the petition a “distraction from the real problems in public education.”

A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said Coakley’s decision to certify ballot initiatives are “based purely on the facts and the law.”

“As we do with all petition decisions, we work cooperatively with parties who wish to challenge our rulings,” said the spokesman, Brad Puffer. “The most important thing is to get the right result.”

A Stand for Children spokesman defended the ballot question.

“We’re really confident that the attorney general’s decision will stand,” said Sam Caspaneda Holdren, communications director for the group.

Stand for Children officials say their plan would augment the state regulations, ensure that guidelines for teacher effectiveness carry over into staffing decisions and make sure tenure is “earned and kept through a more rigorous process.”

If Stand for Children’s signature drive succeeds, lawmakers would have until May 2012 to back the proposal, offer an alternative or not address the issue at all and allow the plan to proceed to the ballot. If lawmakers opt to allow the question to proceed, supporters must gather another 11,485 signatures, clearing the way for the question to be put before voters to decide in November 2012.

“Closing the achievement gap in Massachusetts is really critical. Every child deserves a great teacher,” Holdren said. “That’s what we’re advocating for. We look forward to the Legislature having an opportunity to take action on these issues.”

In raising concerns with the ballot question, Toner invoked Gov. Deval Patrick’s Education Secretary, Paul Reville, who told the News Service in August that regulations on teacher evaluations should be given more time for review before consequences are implemented.

“For the first time ever, we’re including things like student performance and student voice in the evaluation process,” Reville said at the time. “I’m not ready yet to talk about consequences that will flow from this until I have confidence that the instrument is effectively implemented.”

The reason....

One of the main reasons why the cost of a new car is almost $20000...$5K signing bonuses for UAW members when most workers would be glad to get the same basic wages they get w/o any incentives...The Auto industry wonders why more people aren't buying new cars...here's your answer.

Chicago Union Leader personifies why Unions represent greed, lack of morals and ethics - Happy Labor Day !

Happy Labor Day Weekend.....Labor likes to tout the movement as " supporting the rights of the workers, etc. etc."....Reality is a far different outcome.

The enclosed story reminds me of " ANIMAL FARM " by George Orwell. The crux of the story is that the Animals kick the humans out because they want things to be fair for all animals....until some animals get greedy, and take more for themselves.

The key quote is when the other animals ask the Pigs why they get more of everything, and live in the farmer's house, the Pigs reply, " All Animals are equal, but some are more equal."

This is the PERFECT analogy for what goes on with Labor Leaders as they espouse they are there for the workers, but in reality, they are there only for their own greedy needs.

Exhibit #1 on Labor Day Weekend - Thomas Villanova, a union leader in Chicago.

His $108,000 city pension comes on top of the $198,000 annual salary he is paid to represent the interests of thousands of city workers.

Villanova last worked for the city in 1989 as an electrical mechanic with the Department of Streets and Sanitation, making about $40,000 a year. Yet in 2008 he was allowed to retire at age 56 with a $108,000 city pension. That's because, under a little-known state law, his pension was based not on his city paycheck but on his much higher union salary.

If this kind of outright THEFT and Chicanery doesn't make your blood boil, I am unsure what would. The Taxpayers in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago and the Union Workers are footing the bill for a greedy and obviously unethical shaking down of the taxpayer. Tax dollars feather his nest and I am sure Chicago needs every penny they have for the citizens, instead of giving this b@stard a champagne lifestyle because he exploits the rules.

THIS is the poster child for what the UNION movement has become. That is why UNION membership is down because people know that in the end, it will not help them, but only the few greedy pigs at the top.....who have no ethics or morals.


chicagotribune.com
Union leader draws lucrative pension perk based on false information
By Jason Grotto, Tribune reporter

10:09 PM CDT, September 1, 2011

Every month, Thomas Villanova gets a $9,000 reminder of how lucrative it can be to serve as a union leader in Chicago.

The sum is part of a city pension that comes on top of the $198,000 annual salary he is paid to represent the interests of thousands of city workers.

Villanova last worked for the city in 1989 as an electrical mechanic with the Department of Streets and Sanitation, making about $40,000 a year. Yet in 2008 he was allowed to retire at age 56 with a $108,000 city pension. That's because, under a little-known state law, his pension was based not on his city paycheck but on his much higher union salary.

This kind of deal is available only to union officials who meet certain requirements, but a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation has uncovered documents that show Villanova violated state law when he applied for the pension and cast doubt on whether he truly qualifies for all that money.

To boost his taxpayer-supported city pension, Villanova signed documents certifying that he had waived his union pension and had two union officials write letters supporting his claim. In fact, records show dues collected from the rank-and-file were still set aside for Villanova's union pension.

When city pension fund officials discovered last year that Villanova never gave up his union pension, they gave him a pass and didn't move to take away his city retirement benefits.

What's more, labor leaders can get an inflated city pension only if they are on a leave of absence from a city job to work full time for a union. But officials from the municipal pension fund approved Villanova's application despite city employment records that show he took a leave to go back to school and then let that leave of absence expire in 1992.

Now just 58, Villanova stands to collect approximately $3 million from the city's municipal pension fund during his lifetime, according to a Tribune/WGN-TV analysis based on the fund's actuarial assumptions. And because the state's pension laws are so broken, he didn't have to contribute enough to the city pension fund to cover the costs, which means taxpayers will make up the shortfall.

"It's egregious. I haven't seen this anywhere else in the country," said Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, when he heard about Villanova's deal. "The spirit of a pension plan is insurance against poverty. It's not to become wealthy."

In order to receive an inflated city pension, state law says labor leaders can't be part of any pension plan from their union. Yet Villanova is one of four officials from Local 134 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who received city pensions based on their union salaries even though they never gave up their union pensions.

Terrance Stefanski, executive director of the Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, conceded that the union leaders violated state law by participating in both the city and union pension funds at the same time. But he said the law is confusing and the city pension fund isn't in a position to determine whether the labor leaders knowingly submitted false information, which would be a felony.

"We are not an investigative agency," he said.

Stefanski said the city still considered Villanova to be on a leave of absence, and therefore he qualified to receive the pension perk.

Villanova declined to be interviewed. Through attorney Patrick Deady, Villanova said he followed the city pension fund's directions and that he qualified for his city pension because he taught union apprenticeship classes while in school.

Now president of the Chicago and Cook County Building and Construction Trades Council, Villanova helped negotiate every current collective bargaining agreement between Chicago and the 33 trade unions that do business with the city.

With the Emanuel administration struggling to fill a $635 million budget hole, Villanova sits at the bargaining table and speaks on behalf of 8,000 city tradesmen who face layoffs, furlough days and reduced benefits, in no small part because of the city's rising pension costs.

Today, the municipal pension fund is racing toward insolvency, with barely half of the assets needed to cover its liabilities. That means city workers face threats not only to their current job security but also to their future retirement security.

The average city retiree receives a pension of about $28,000 a year, roughly a quarter of what Villanova is drawing from the same fund.

Meanwhile, about $200,000 in rank-and-file dues that were paid into a union pension fund for Villanova have yet to be returned to the union. Documents show that Villanova agreed in writing last year to "disclaim" the pension money — but left the door open to taking it back if the rules change.

Double-dipping

Villanova's six-figure city pension is far better than that offered by his former union, Local 134.

The local's pension plan would have provided Villanova with 45 percent of his average salary during his highest-paid five years of work. He couldn't retire until he turned 65, however, without forfeiting a significant chunk of his union pension.

Under rules governing the city pension plan, on the other hand, Villanova could retire from his old city job at 56 with 70 percent of his average union salary during the prior four years; that average turned out to be $158,000. What's more, he could keep his high-paying union position.

To get that deal, Villanova had to make $344,000 in contributions to the plan as if he had been a city employee all along. He also had to submit an application certifying that he met all the criteria for the city pension, including that he wasn't part of a union pension plan.

In November 2008, Villanova signed an application that included this line: "I also understand that I am allowed to make these contributions as long as I do not receive credit in any pension plan established by such local labor organization."

In addition to his signed application, Villanova submitted a letter from a trustee of Local 134's pension plan that said Villanova had waived his union pension.

"We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. Villanova requesting that his Local 134 pension credits cease immediately. The Local 134 Executive Board will act upon his request accordingly," Peter Cerf, the pension fund's executive board secretary, wrote in September 2007.

Frank O'Lone, secretary-treasurer of the trades council, also wrote a letter on Villanova's behalf, in October 2008. "Thomas Villanova will not receive any pension credits in the Building Trades Council Pension Plan for the period starting 3/5/2004 to present," the letter read.

Yet documents submitted by the union pension fund to the U.S. Department of Labor show that money set aside for Villanova remained in the fund.

When Villanova became president of the trades council in 2004, Local 134 amended its pension plan to allow certain employees of the council to be participants. The Tribune and WGN-TV were able to identify contributions the trades council made on Villanova's behalf because he was one of only two council employees who were part of Local 134's plan and the only one who had worked long enough to be vested.

Records submitted by the union pension plan show that, in all, about $200,000 in member dues from the trades council went toward a union pension for Villanova. He also received a decade's worth of contributions from Local 134 members before becoming president of the trades council. But it's impossible to know the total from publicly available documents.

Officials from Local 134 and the trades council declined to comment on Villanova's pensions.

The municipal pension fund discovered in September 2010 that Villanova was not complying with state law by participating in both funds. City pension officials could have pursued criminal charges against him if they thought he had knowingly made false statements on his pension application, which is a felony.

Municipal pension fund officials had Villanova sign an affidavit admitting that he was participating in both plans at the same time and promising to "disclaim" union contributions that overlap with his city pension. But the money is staying in the fund in case municipal pension fund requirements "are reversed pursuant to action of the (fund's) trustees or litigation by similarly situated participants."

That means Villanova wasn't required to return union members' money that went to his union pension, and eventually he still could get access to it.

'It does look bad'

Villanova's hefty municipal pension depended, in large part, on how he described his leave of absence from the city in his pension application.

"I was an employee with the City of Chicago or Board of Education," his signed application states, "and was granted a leave of absence to work as an employee of the labor organization named below." The organization he wrote in was Local 134.

Yet city records show that Villanova didn't take a leave of absence to work for Local 134. He took a leave to attend Moraine Valley Community College in Palos Hills. While there, he earned roughly $41,000 a year working for the college, state records show.

Under city work rules, employees can receive various types of leaves, including disability, maternity, military, personal and union. City workers must apply for a leave of absence and in many cases must renew those requests after a certain time period has elapsed.

Villanova applied for his leave of absence on Oct. 25, 1989, according to city employment records. In the section of the form marked "Reason for Request," he wrote: "Return to school for advanced courses."

He renewed his leave every three months, filing seven requests in all. On each, he wrote that he was taking a leave to go back to school. All of the forms he signed say that if he failed to report back to his city post within five days after his leave of absence expired, he would resign his position with the city.

Villanova's last leave of absence request expired on July 24, 1991. State records show that he continued working full time for the state community college until November 1992. The municipal pension fund's own records show that he didn't start at Local 134 until January 1993, a year and a half after he had effectively resigned his city job.

Yet when Villanova applied for a city pension in November 2008, the municipal pension fund approved an amount based on his union salary — even though he did not take a leave of absence to work for a union and had allowed the leave he did take to expire 17 years earlier.

The fund's board of trustees, composed of union leaders and city officials, signed off on Villanova's $108,000-a-year pension in February 2009, backdating the start of his benefits to November 2008.

"It does look bad," said city Treasurer Stephanie Neely, a trustee of the city pension fund. "But we on the pension board didn't do anything wrong. We did everything we could do, and that's all I can somewhat control."

As part of the justification for awarding him the higher city pension, the municipal pension fund provided the Tribune and WGN-TV with a 2008 letter written by then-Deputy Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Vanessa Quail on Villanova's behalf.

"Mr. Villanova's current status with the Department of Streets and Sanitation is that we regard him on a personal leave of absence," she wrote. "While we have not located any leave of absence papers of Mr. Villanova's subsequent to April of 1991, that is not inconsistent with his retaining his status."

The reason he was able to maintain his leave of absence: No one at the city department entered a code in its computer system showing that Villanova had given up his post. According to Stefanski, the technicality means Villanova qualifies for a city pension based on his union salary.

Thanks to his work at Moraine Valley, Villanova's city pension is one of two public pensions he is currently receiving.

Villanova gets another $12,000 a year from the State University Retirement System of Illinois, based on his work for the community college. Although he held that job for only three years, state law allows him to receive reciprocal pension benefits from SURS when he retired from the city.

That pension is also based on his union salary, not the $41,000 he made working for the community college.

In all, Villanova takes home about $120,000 a year from taxpayer-supported pension systems, an amount that will grow by 3 percent every year as long as he lives.

WGN-TV producer Marsha Bartel and reporter Mark Suppelsa contributed to this report, along with Tribune reporter Jodi S. Cohen.

jgrotto@tribune.com

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

The Company you keep......

Seems a Governor Rick Perry would like to alter history and forget that he was an ardent supporter of AL " THE SKY IS FALLING " GORE... GORE is top of the hypocrites list with his fake crusade to "save the earth" which is really his way to shill more money out of people's pockets.....

A picture says a 1000 words...We already learned not to listen to POLS who deny their past associations ( Like all the idjits that President Obama associated with before running for President)

It's hard to soar like an EAGLE when you flock with TURKEYS.....looks like PERRY is a bit of a TURKEY and less of an EAGLE than he alludes to be.... GORE is a Turkey and a gold plated liar. maybe if he kept his mouth sut for 5 minutes, it would lower all the co2 in the atmosphere.

Perry backed crusading Gore in '88
By: Bob King - Politico.com
August 15, 2011 06:32 PM EDT

Texas Gov. Rick Perry may have forgotten a thing or two about the Al Gore presidential campaign he helped lead in 1988.

In an interview with an Iowa radio station on Monday, the Republican presidential contender explained his role as the Gore campaign’s Texas chairman by saying that “this was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming.”

But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988 — long before his activism led to several books, a Nobel Prize and a part in an Academy Award-winning film. It was also well before the right gave him the "Mr. Ozone" nickname and talk radio heaped endless mockery on the future vice president.

Gore, then a young Tennessee senator trying to break out in a crowded Democratic field, mentioned the warming planet as one of his priorities for his presidential campaign in April 1987, according to news coverage at the time.

“He laid out a broad list of national objectives, from combating AIDS and Alzheimer's disease to curbing the ‘greenhouse effect’ — the threat to the Earth's atmosphere from the burning of oil, gas and coal,” The Los Angeles Times reported in covering Gore’s announcement. In May 1987, according to The Washington Post, his stump speeches included a call for the nation to “confront the emerging problems of the greenhouse effect and the threat to our ozone.”

Later that summer, Gore joined Republican Sen. John Chafee in calling for urgent action on climate change and the threat of coastal flooding.

Such was his reputation for green wonkery that, in a January 1988 profile in the Christian Science Monitor, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund said of Gore: ''I think it would be safe to say that he goes to bed at night worrying about things like stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming.''

So was all this unknown to Perry, who at the time was a Democrat trying to put Gore in the White House?

No, Perry spokesman Mark Miner said Monday. They just disagreed.

“The governor has always been a conservative and didn't agree with Al Gore on every issue, global warming being one of them,” Miner said in an email to POLITICO.

Perry has, of course, broken with Gore before. In a December 2009 speech to builders in Dallas, Perry said a lot had changed in the years since he worked on Gore’s campaign: “I certainly got religion. I think he’s gone to hell.”

In a 2007 speech to Californian Republicans, Perry said: "I've heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I'm starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide."

"The only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders"

"The Horders" is not some reality show where we see a couple who has gathered too much stuff in their cramped quarters but rather the story of what businesses are doing in a period of record profits.

The heads of the corporations in questions are short sighted as the more they follow this path of grabbing profits and not sending that back to the workforce in the form of pay increases and benefits eventually (and likely already) have reached a tipping point where the workers (a.k.a. consumers) will not have the $$$ to spend on the goods and service which generate the profits.

Instead of allowing things to go along as they should, they are trying to strangle the very Golden Goose who supplies their profits. The Unions didn't help either as they are only interested in their own interests and that is not supporting workers but rather keeping things good for those in charge of the Unions. The Unions "use & abuse" the workers just like the businesses.

Northeastern economics professor Andrew Sum called the mismatch "historically unprecedented" and said it bodes ill for future growth..."Workers have no money, no purchasing power, so that's why consumption is not moving," he said.

A freshman economics student can tell you what happens next - The "GREED" factor causes the whole thing to stutter as the companies make it impossible for people to buy the new cars and other durable goods needed because they haven't been able to keep up with inflation. This is further evidence of the " I got mine" aspect in businesses and it will only result in prolonged recession and pain for the majority. The cost of gas and other consumer goods have risen steadily in the last two 1/2 years that the Feckless Fool in the White House has been in charge. This has happened on his watch and he is solely responsible for a failure to act.

And what does the Feckless Fool in the White House have to say about it??

" Time to eat your peas."- President Obama

Oh, and for the record, the Empty Suit and his family will still be going for their 10 day Martha's Vineyard Holiday (at taxpayers expense) even if the majority of Americans can't afford to have a vacation.

HEY, Mr. President - Have you ever heard the term, " Leadership by example ?" - No, I am SURE you haven't. He is the King of the " Do as I say, not as I do" set. And just for the record, he'll be on the government payroll for the rest of his life, regardless of how many people's lives he wrecked with his incompetence.

Companies churn out profits but not jobs

By Steven C. Johnson Reuters 24JULY2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The sluggish pace of hiring may be hobbling the U.S. economy, but it's not been holding back big U.S. companies' profits thanks to growth overseas and cost controls at home. And that's bad news for the more than 14 million Americans without jobs.

Big businesses would normally be desperate for surging job growth as it would feed into domestic demand but these aren't normal times. Massive growth opportunities overseas, especially in China and other buoyant Asian economies, have some of the largest American companies on track for record profits, even if they're businesses are mostly treading water in the U.S.

The message last week from the chief financial officer of one of the nation's industrial giants couldn't be clearer.

"We've driven all this cost out. Sales have come back, but people have not," said Greg Hayes, chief financial officer at United Technologies Corp. "It's the structural cost reductions that we have done over the past few years that have allowed us to see strong bottom-line results.

The company, the world's largest maker of air conditioners and elevators, said second-quarter profit rose 19 percent, and it is doing most of its hiring in emerging markets where demand for its products is growing fastest.

It isn't alone in seeing profits climb in the current earnings reporting season.

About 78 percent of companies in the benchmark S&P 500 index that have reported second-quarter earnings have beaten Wall Street expectations. Many benefited after slashing costs when the financial crisis hit and then keeping tight control on them even as sales recovered.

Economists say the ability to do more with less has helped create a two-speed U.S. recovery. The S&P 500 has doubled in value since the recession ended and per-share earnings are currently on track for a new annual record, while employment remains below the level seen in late 2008 when corporate profits troughed.

Employers added fewer jobs in June than at any time in the past nine months, and the jobless rate rose to 9.2 percent - not far below its level of 9.5 percent in June 2009 when the recession ended.

"We've never seen the kind of shedding of jobs that we saw in this recession. America's corporations have never been running so efficiently," said Ellen Zentner, senior U.S. economist at Nomura Securities in New York.

LITTLE WAGE GROWTH

What's more, workers have never claimed such a paltry share of real national income growth. Economists at Northeastern University in Boston recently found corporate profits captured 88 percent of income growth between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010.

Workers' take? Slightly more than 1 percent.

"The only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders," the study concludes.

The high jobless rate is also keeping wage growth severely restrained in the U.S., which is also good for profit margins.

Recent Department of Labor data showed unit labor costs edged up 0.7 percent in the year to March, though not enough to make up a 2.9 percent decline in the prior 12-month period.

Northeastern economics professor Andrew Sum called the mismatch "historically unprecedented" and said it bodes ill for future growth, especially given many companies are sitting on their cash rather than investing it.

"Workers have no money, no purchasing power, so that's why consumption is not moving," he said. By sitting on profits, firms are acting like earners "who take their money and stuff it in the mattress. That's happening across the economy."

U.S. economic growth slowed sharply in the first quarter and was expected to remain below 2 percent in the April-June period.

Some blamed that on high energy prices and supply shortages caused by Japan's earthquake and are betting on a rebound in the second half.

A July Reuters poll put the median estimate for 2011 growth at 2.7 percent, down from 2.9 percent in 2010.

CHICKEN AND EGG

Businesses' ability to do more with the same or less -- what economists term increased productivity -- has been rising since the 1990s, thanks partly to technological advancements and the ability to tap markets in fast-growing, lower-cost developing countries.

Some of the most profitable firms are those with overseas markets. The largest U.S. conglomerate General Electric Co. tied its 21.6 percent rise in earnings partly to strong foreign demand for its heavy equipment, including jet engines and electric turbines.

In the United States, things are obviously different. Consumers are still trying to pay down large debts built up during the boom years, which suppresses spending and means there is little incentive for companies to hire.

"It's a chicken-and-egg thing -- whether demand or supply drives growth," Zentner said. "Studies show that lack of sales for small business is the biggest impediment to hiring."

Even companies selling basic consumer products are feeling the pinch as the jobless and those on low incomes watch the pennies. Pepsi Co Inc tempered its full-year outlook this week and said performance in its North American beverage business was worse than expected.

In the cost-conscious auto industry. General Motors Co's top U.S. sales chief, Don Johnson, told Reuters that its manufacturing managers have been "squeaking out extra units through improving line rates, adding on extra shifts". The company indicated it is in no hurry to build new factories or hire lots of new workers.

Uncertainty about future tax rates and policy, a by-product of the deadlock in Washington over whether to raise the country's borrowing limit and how to rein in a gaping budget deficit, has also made firms cautious, said Jacob Oubina, senior U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets.

But Doug Cliggott, U.S. equity strategist at Credit Suisse, said investors and CEOs alike should probably prepare for more subdued earnings in the second half and beyond.

For one thing, growth abroad appears to be slowing as booming economies such as China and Brazil try to tame inflation. Heavy machine maker Caterpillar blamed slower U.S. and global growth for disappointing quarterly earnings on Friday.

And while U.S. interest rates are likely to remain very low for some time, companies won't be able to rely on massive federal spending, which Cliggott said also helped boost profits over the past two years.

(Additional reporting by Scott Malone in Boston, Nick Zieminksi in New York and Clare Baldwin in Detroit; Editing by Martin Howell)