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

Coincidence

On NCIS, there are rules that Jethro Leroy Gibbs follows and teaches his team as a method of being the best at what they do.

Rule #39: There is no such thing as coincidence.

Based on evidence presented to me today, I must concur.

On the Instapundit Blog today:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

I QUESTION THE TIMING: A reader who works at Yale emails:

I found it interesting that this email came out today from Yale benefits:

Dear Colleagues:
We would like to make you aware of a significant federally mandated change which will impact Yale’s healthcare flexible spending account benefit. Effective January 1, 2013, as a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the annual contribution limit will be capped at $2,500. Currently, the maximum amount of pre-tax dollars you can set aside in a healthcare flexible spending account is $12,000.

As a participant who contributed $2,500 or more in 2012, we encourage you to keep this in mind as you begin to plan for your 2013 out-of-pocket medical, dental and vision expenses. You will soon have an opportunity to re-enroll in the flexible spending account benefit plan during Annual Benefits Enrollment (December 3-17). As a reminder, you have until March 15, 2013 to incur expenses against your 2012 contributions, and until April 30, 2013 to submit claims those for reimbursement. We hope that this grace period is helpful for maximizing your flexible spending benefit for 2012.

If you have any further questions, please contact an Employee Services representative.
What interesting timing! I did know about this, as a former CPA/tax accountant, but how many did?

Today my husband came home and told me that his boss informed him today that a layoff is planned. Small aerospace/manufacturing plant.   We were worried before the election that if the direction didn’t change, we’d face an ugly economic future. It may already becoming true for our family.  

 I think a lot of stuff will be coming out over the next few weeks and months that was carefully kept off the radar before Election Day.

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

Then today, I get this from a shipmate working out here in the AFGHN Sandbox:

Hi - Hope you're well

We just started open enrollment with my company; so I asked the benefits guy if I do nothing will all benefits remain the same-----a resounding yes was his answer. He did however advise me to go on the website to review the benefits to ensure all was OK.---so I did

All benefits were defaulted to the ones I have had for 3 yrs----good news; until the last page; that was the calculation page. My contribution for 3 years has been $106.00 per month; but the new contribution effective Jan. 2013 will be $293.00. 

 

That's almost a 200% increase.

So I e-mailed the benefits guy to verify this and of course his answer was "YES--WE'VE BEEN HIT WITH A HUGE RATE INCREASE'

A huge rate increase????????????????? can you say OBAMA-CARE

this is only the beginning

please share with your readers (and delete my name)

 

The idea that this all was "coincidence" is not only naive, but demonstrates a level of cluelessness that is scary.

This was part of the plan all along and people were dumb enough to vote for it.

Might be best to brush on these - we all might need them to deal with what will be coming:

Step away from your busted ass vehicle.....

The level of desperation on display by the failing Idjit-In-Charge at the White House is the sad sign of how badly he has done over the last three years.....Watching the White House manufacture lie after lie is pathetic. Real Unemployment ( the U6 figure which counts those on unemployment and those who have expired the ability to collect benefits) is near 15%.

It makes me think about what the Men In Black said when they were arresting the bad guy at the end of their first movie:

Kay: You're under arrest for violating (The US Constitution ).

Jay: So hand over whatever (documents) you might be carrying, step away from your busted ass vehicle, and put your hands on your head

That's what we should do - send the Men In Black after him.....

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.

IT'S A TAX - Just what the DEMS and the President want

Just what the Idjit in charge wanted, the ability to tax the Middle Class right into the Poor House.

And then there's this - the Supreme Court pretty much ripped it up....Pissa.

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.

We need to elect an adult as President

The media is trying to tee up the 2012 Election as " The Popular Kids" ( Obama and his ilk) vs. "The Squares" ( Romney & the GOP)


REALLY ?  Although this is the CRAP you would expect from the media.  The same fools who provide us with updates on stupid reality shows as "news" and who push the dumbing down of America on our citizens while laughing behind their backs at us.


Obama is NOT the person who should be in the Oval Office as the election is NOT High School.  WE need the best person for the job, not the most popular.  We need someone who isn't about being popular but about being the best in creating jobs and fixing the economy.

The enclosed writer gets it....For far too long we have had a complete lack of adult leadership in government.  We need to stop the BS and get back to the nation being a place where jobs & a strong economy are the priorities, not the BS of those who are elected allowing the stupidity we have witnessed in the last 3 1/2 years.


The enclosed picture shows two members of Obama's staff - The man on the left is Obama's newly-designated chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  The picture speaks volumes about the type of people who are in charge of our government.


Here's the link to the LA Times story


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-favreau.html



Wednesday April 18, 2012



Partying on the public dime is endless
Under Obama, some federal workers have no shame at all - Don Surber


The Obama administration sent 11 elite Secret Service agents to Cartagena, Colombia, ahead of a presidential visit for an international conference.


The agents stayed at the swank Hotel Caribe, where it is alleged they partied with hookers until the dawn's early light.


Once again, we have a Democratic president and once again the editorial pages are filled with sex talk.


These are not 11 bad apples. These are the best of the best in Washington.


The party-time attitude of the Secret Service reflects a president who blows millions on vacations to exotic locations hither and yon. He spent $250,000 of taxpayer money so he could fly to New York City to catch a Broadway show.


Even after the Secret Service party became an international scandal - an embarrassment that made the United States look like an imperial state slumming in Colombia - Hillary Rodham Clinton kicked up her heels and partied all night at a night club in Cartagena.


The disgust was felt worldwide.


"It is hard to imagine Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright or Henry Kissinger 'livin' la vida loca' on the world stage," wrote Nile Gardiner of the Telegraph in London.


"This was less an example of 'smart power' than a boozy nightclub audition for the sixth season of 'Jersey Shore.'


"Hillary Clinton's Colombian antics are an embarrassment for a high-level cabinet member on official duty, and have lowered the office of Secretary of State.


"Not exactly the sort of image the federal government should be projecting at a time of widespread public disillusionment with Washington excesses."


The conference was about illicit drugs, which are destroying democracies across the Western Hemisphere.


No accord was reached.


Actual agreement was the last thing the president wanted. He joked with Colombian officials that he was there to scout out his next vacation with Michelle.


Yuk, yuk, yuck.


The joke is on the taxpayer. This was not a real conference but another spring break for our immature president - another taxpayer-funded embarrassment.


This is just another scandal from an administration that gives billions in government money for crackpot "alternative energy" schemes run by billionaire donors to President Obama's political campaign.


President Obama famously warned CEOs that they could not go to Las Vegas on the public dime.Now we learn why he said that. Government officials want Las Vegas for themselves.


The General Services Administration blew more than $800,000 on a "conference" in Las Vegas.


There are no adults in the White House. None.


The partying will not end until voters elect an adult as president.


http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber.

Michigan Teacher upset because she can't retire at 47 as she had hoped....

And people wonder why we are 25th in the world in education....

This "teacher" is responsible for educating children and shows her contempt not just for her position as an educator but her total contempt for all others in her state. She wants what she is "entitled" to and doesn't care how it effects anyone else.

She is the tip of the iceberg as we will see thousands more like her who will look for the majority to do without because they were promised lifetime everything on that taxpayers by other government idiots.

To believe that anyone could be this out of touch with reality is mindboggling...


Teacher Upset She Can't Retire at 47
MEA member says reform bill calling for teachers to contribute minimally to retirement is unfairBy Tom Gantert April 18, 2012
www.michigancapitolconfidential.com

Terri List says she would tell her students not to become a teacher in Michigan.

Why?

One of the reasons is because the Saginaw Township Community School District English teacher won’t be able to retire at age 47 as she has hoped.

List was highlighted by the Michigan Education Association as one of the critics of Senate Bill 1040, which would require public school employees to contribute at least 5 percent of their compensation to their retirement plan.

The MEA reported on its website: "Saginaw Township teacher Terry (sic) List had hoped to retire in the next three years when she was 47 years old. That wouldn’t be possible under SB 1040. List would have to work another 16 years to be eligible for health benefits."

“By the time I’m 60, I would have put in 43 years of service, earning a salary at the top of the pay scale. How does that save the district money? You could hire two people for the cost of one and encourage young people to join the profession. Right now, I would not recommend to my pupils to become a teacher in Michigan.”

List didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

According to the school’s most recent teacher’s contract, List earns between $70,000 and $80,000 a year depending upon her level of education. Factor in expected pay raises over the next 15 years and it’s likely List would make more than $90,000 by the time she retires, said Michael Van Beek, education policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Van Beek estimated List’s pension would be $60,000 a year in retirement and it would increase 3 percent a year and she would get health benefits when she retired at age 60. Van Beek also said that it is likely that List bought “years of service” because she said she would have 43 years of service by age 60. Van Beek said that practice is basically extinct in the private sector.

Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, called List’s comments “amazing.”

“Wow. They have reached the politicians’ level of entitlement,” Drolet said. “She thinks she is entitled to retire at 47? Holy smokes. I don’t know what more to say to that. A government employee thinking that 47 is a reasonable expectation to retire shows just how deep inside their own bubble they live, insulated from the real world.”

Charles Owens, president of the Michigan chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, said tongue-in-cheek that List was “spot on” in her complaint.

“If you want to retire if you are 47, apparently teaching is not the place to go,” Owens said. “The least Terri could do is provide a list of places other people could go so they can retire when they are 47.”

News and the story-behind-the-story / Healthcare Laws are only for those not politically connected

Here is a list of the Editors' Picks from the NY TIMES as given to me by Google News this morning...See If you can guess the "story behind the story" message that these have in common.

I have highlighted the actual headline and put in blue the real message

NY Times

Political Memo: Front-Runner Role Could Thwart Romney in New Hampshire By JEFF ZELENY (Taking Down the GOP Front Runner in any way we can)

Rick Santorum, Known for His Fighting Nature, Strikes a Calmer Tone By MARK LEIBOVICH (Split the GOP Voters to cause dissent)

Evangelicals Hurry to Find Alternative to Romney By ERIK ECKHOLM (Ditto)

Democrats See Signs of Hope in Election Battle for Congress By JENNIFER STEINHAUER ( Really ?? Democrats hopeful in taking Congressional elections ?? Putting Pelosi in charge again ?Really ?? What are you smoking?)

The press have been in full force putting out positive political stories for Obama since his return to Washington from his vacation. This will continue in full force through to election day as the majority of the press wants him in. The GOP candidate will not be perfect but we have to get Obama out of office before he further injures our nation.

Then there's this...The kind of news that let's you know what is going on when new laws are put in place for the commoners, not those who are favored politically by our President.

Obama has to go. This cannot be the way our country is governed.


Labor unions primary recipients of Obamacare waivers
By Paul Conner
01/06/2012 dailycaller.com

Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer.

Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.

The labor unions receiving waivers include those that are monitored under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, and those that are not. The waivers granted since June 17 are valid until 2013, but recipients must make sure their employees understand the “limits of their coverage,” according to HHS documents.

HHS granted waivers on a year-by-year basis under its initial application process, but waivers granted after June 17 are valid for a maximum of two-and-a-half years.

By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.

Obama requests another $1.2 trillion of the taxpayer's $$$ while in Hawaii on vacation

You're sitting out in Hawaii on a $4 Million dollar vacation, paid for by the taxpayers and bored...so what is there to do after golfing and dining out in Honolulu ?

You hit the taxpayers up for $1.2 Trillion dollars...after all, it's only money. Yes, the article states that he is required to make the request because we are getting close to reaching the ceiling for our nation's debt but this putz ran for the office on reducing the debt but instead has driven it to unseen heights. Meanwhile he wants to rate himself as the 4th best President ever....what gall.

How CLUELESS can this President be to ask for a hike in the debt ceiling at Christmas when there are still so many out of work, unable to meet the basics, let alone afford a vacation ? His administration pulled back on the increase request on a technicality until Congress is back in session. Likely the real reason is so he can blame the increase on them. The President will try to shift blame for all his mistakes on to Congress as he campaigns for re-election. I say throw him and Congress both out. They have all performed like bunch of idiots, with a few exceptions like Senator Scott Brown and Senator John McCain.

It is 11 months until we can vote this lackluster incompetent out of office...November 6th can't come soon enough. Please, I'm begging you to vote Obama out of office and send him and his wife back to Chicago. As the bumper sticker states, OMG, which stands for " Obama Must Go ".


Obama delays petition for $1.2T debt limit increase at request of congressional leaders
By Associated Press

HONOLULU — President Barack Obama is delaying his request for another $1.2 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit at the request of congressional leaders.

It’s basically because of a technicality.

The White House had been ready to ask for the increase Friday because the government is within $100 billion of exhausting its current borrowing authority. Congress would then have 15 days to reject the request, though Obama would veto any objections in order to ensure that the government does not default on its obligations.

But with Congress not due to return to Washington until mid-January, a bipartisan group of lawmakers asked Obama to delay his request so they would be in session during the 15-day period allowed for objections.

“The administration is in discussions with leaders in both houses to determine the best timing for submission of certification and any subsequent votes in the two houses,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.

Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner, said the House leadership preferred not having to call members back to Washington early to vote on the increase request, but would have done so if necessary.

A senior White House official said Obama will make his request within days. The Treasury Department will use accounting measures to ensure that the nation does not reach its debt limit before the $1.2 trillion increase is finalized, said the official, who requested anonymity because the person lacked authority to speak publically.

The debt limit is the amount the government can borrow to finance its operations. It has soared because the government has run record deficits over the past decade. The borrowed money has helped pay for two wars, stimulate the nation’s economy after the worst recession since the Great Depression and keep intact broad tax cuts initiated during the Bush administration.

Obama’s request to increase the nation’s borrowing authority would boost the debt limit to a record $16.4 trillion. The president and Congress agreed to raise it to that level in three steps as part of the August deal that was struck hours before a threatened government default.

Officials say the $1.2 trillion increase should be enough to allow the government to keep borrowing until the end of 2012, or just after the presidential election.

Congress agreed to raise the debt limit by $400 billion in August and by another $500 billion in September. House Republicans voted against the second increase, but failed to block it because the Senate approved it. The increases are scheduled to take effect unless both chambers vote against them.

The White House announced the delay in the debt limit request from Hawaii, where the president is on vacation.

Like Pigs at the feeding trough - Educators line themselves up for taxpayer-funded benefits of $100,000 a year or more

The fact that the number of $100K pensions has skyrocketed is a key indication that the people setting themselves up for these outrageously high retirements have no care for anyone else but themselves. Greedy Bastards who claim to have worked for this waste of taxpayers money. The educators only paid in 11% of their pay in and in return collect the other 89% from the taxpayers......Nice return when you get 800% back on your investment.

They claim that they are entitled to it because they worked hard over their careers...the many taxpayers who will be footing the bill for these blowhards worked hard also, they just didn't have a HACK based & written law mandating a major ripoff of the taxpayers assisting them.

These HACKS can make up all the reasons they want to justify this ripoff of the taxpayers. It is still an affront to all those who have to pay the way for these ripoff artists who have used the law to feather their own nest with a " I got mine" selfish attitude.

Educator’s pensions skyrocket
Expert: ‘Urgent need for reform’
By Chris Cassidy - Boston Herald
Monday, July 25, 2011

The number of retired Bay State public school employees raking in six-figure pensions has skyrocketed — more than doubling in just four years — contributing to a booming retirement bonanza that could plunge the Bay State into a deep financial crisis unless lawmakers move quickly to fix the system, experts told the Herald.

The latest pension records indicate 140 educators, most of them administrators, are enjoying retired life with taxpayer-funded benefits of $100,000 a year or more — up from 93 in 2009 and 55 in 2007, a Herald investigation found.

Topping the list is retired Randolph Superintendent Arthur Melia, with an annual pension of $147,492.

“I always strived to be No. 1 at everything, you know?” Melia told the Herald. “This was part of the law and part of what I earned over 32 years.”

Former Concord Superintendent Brenda Finn ($145,724) and retired Whittier Vocational Superintendent Karen Sarkisian ($142,913) round out the top three.

The June 30 figures from the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System also showed educators’ pensions last fiscal year totaled $2.1 billion, up $300 million in two years.

“This is a serious problem, and there’s an urgent need for reform,” said Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “Just as companies have found they can’t afford defined pension plans because they’re too rich, governments are finding the same problems.”

“This is the tip of the pension iceberg,” said David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. “Sooner or later Massachusetts will reach a crisis point, where we find ourselves unable to maintain normal functions of government and are unable to pay for these pensions because of resistance of taxpayers to further tax increases.”

Critics point to the state’s generous formula that gives public retirees 80 percent of their three highest consecutive earning years. They warn the state is putting off the day of reckoning.

“They need to act fast,” said Jim Stergios of the Pioneer Institute. “This is something that’s not going away, and it’s going to eat up other services we’re trying to afford”

Gov. Deval Patrick introduced a pension reform bill in January that would push back retirement ages and base pensions on a retiree’s five highest years of service. A legislative subcommittee held a hearing in March and is considering other ideas, including putting a maximum cap on pensions, and expects to present a bill in early fall, state Rep. John Scibak said.

“The real thing I’m striving for is a system perceived both by state employees and the general public as fair and equitable,” said Scibak, who chairs the Public Service Committee.

The rising pensions are a result of a superintendent shortage and the grueling nature of the 24/7 job, which have driven up salaries, said Tom Scott of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.

“There is a big problem with finding qualified people . . . even in this job market,” Scott said.

Paul Toner of the Massachusetts Teachers Association said strong pensions keep teachers from leaving the profession and that teachers now pay a higher percentage of their salary — 11 percent — into the system.

“A good pension is a major retention tool,” Toner said.

Governor Deval Patrick fails to understand the meaning of the word " illegal " - Big surprise...

It seems that the Governor of Massachusetts needs some basic education - Let's help him out. The word he needs to understand better is " illegal "

il·le·gal [ih-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

Synonyms
1. unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed. Illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, criminal can all describe actions not in accord with law. Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes. Unlawful means not sanctioned by or according to law: an unlawful claim to the inheritance; to take unlawful advantage of the trading situation. Illegitimate means lacking legal or traditional right or rights: an illegitimate child; illegitimate use of privileged knowledge.

Once again, Governor " Spend-it-all " Deval Patrick has not figured out that the citizens of Massachusetts DO NOT want to subsidize the illegal immigrants who have violated the laws of the State of Massachusetts. By definition, that would amount to " aiding & abetting" known criminals.

It is par for the course for him and his best buddy, the other "empty suit in residence" at the White House as neither of them cares about their sworn duties to UPHOLD the laws of the state & country where they serve.

We need to make sure that this pair of pathetic fools gets sent packing as soon as possible as they both do nothing but make a mockery of the will of the citizens they are supposed to serve. They would rather put the needs of illegal immigrants ahead of the wishes of the taxpayers and voters. At a time where everything is about fiscal concerns, taxpayers should not be forced to finance the wish lists of these two feckless politicians.


Patrick backs illegal immigrants on tuition
Urges approval of in-state level
By Maria Sacchetti - Boston Globe
Globe Staff / July 21, 2011

Governor Deval Patrick, just weeks after defying federal immigration officials over their controversial Secure Communities program, unexpectedly appeared at a packed State House hearing yesterday to urge lawmakers to let illegal immigrants pay the reduced resident rate at state colleges and universities.

The surprise visit appeared to signal an aggressive new stance by the Patrick administration on illegal immigration and a sharp departure from the governor’s first term, when he shied from incendiary issues such as tuition and driver’s licenses for unauthorized immigrants.

Patrick’s appearance yesterday could inject new life into a bill that has languished in the Legislature for years. Only hours before he arrived, hopes had seemed dim for legislation that passed the Senate in 2005 but failed in the House and has not budged since, with little visible support from leadership in either chamber.

“I know they’re going to hear the arguments on both sides,’’ he said after he addressed the Joint Committee on Higher Education about two bills that would allow students here illegally to pay in-state tuition. “But they should keep in mind we’re talking about real people - individuals, students, and families - whose ambitions are caught up in the only community in most cases that they know.’’

Massachusetts has been a focal point in the debate over illegal immigrant students, drawing national attention last year when Harvard student Eric Balderas was arrested for being here illegally, then allowed to stay.

Harvard’s president and others have endorsed federal legislation known as the Dream Act that would allow such students to apply for legal residency, but that, too, has been stalled for years.

In the absence of federal action giving illegal students a path to residency, advocates for immigrants have lobbied states to make public colleges more affordable for illegal immigrants, many of whom have lived here since they were children. Advocates seize on what they call a discrepancy in federal law: A 1982 US Supreme Court decision guarantees undocumented students a K-12 education, but they are not entitled to go to college and they are barred from receiving government financial aid.

Twelve states, including Connecticut this year, allow such students to pay resident tuition, according to the National Immigration Law Center.

In Massachusetts, illegal immigrants pay the nonresident rate, which is double or triple the price paid by residents, depending on the school. The University of Massachusetts Amherst cost nonresidents $23,630 last year in tuition and fees, compared with $11,734 for state residents.

“We understand that the lawmakers cannot fix the federal situation, but they can fix Massachusetts law,’’ said Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.

The House and Senate bills would allow students to pay in-state tuition if they meet certain criteria, such as attending high school in Massachusetts for at least three years and promising to apply for legal residency as soon as the government allows it.

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimated that passing the legislation would boost the state’s revenues by about $2 million in the first year, if 315 to 365 students enrolled, and up to $7.4 million by the fourth year, when the enrollment could more than double.

The foundation’s president, Michael Widmer, estimated that Massachusetts is home to more than 14,000 illegal immigrants under age 18, nearly 2 percent of enrollment in public schools statewide. Since such students are not eligible for state or federal financial aid, Widmer said the cost to the state would be minimal.

During his first race for governor, in 2006, Patrick was a vocal supporter of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. But he did not make it a priority during his first term. Since being reelected Patrick has taken a bolder stance on several personnel and policy issues. Last year Patrick said he thought the state could not grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants without changes in federal law, but yesterday he did not mention that concern.

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo voted against in-state tuition in 2006, when it failed in the House, but yesterday he would not comment because the bill is still in committee, said his spokesman, Seth Gitell. Senate President Therese Murray could not be reached for comment last night, but last year the Senate approved a measure to bar illegal immigrants from higher education benefits, though it did not become law.

Yesterday a State House hearing room was filled with supporters of the bills.

Conrado, a 23-year-old who graduated from Somerville High four years ago, said he still has a drawer filled with his hopes from high school: his yearbook, containing pictures of friends who have already graduated from college; his SAT scores; and a state scholarship for high MCAS scores, which he could not claim because he has been here illegally from Brazil since he was 13.

“It shouldn’t be this way, and it doesn’t have to be,’’ he told the panel yesterday, declining to give his last name for fear of deportation. “We know this bill makes sense for the Commonwealth.’’

Isabel Vargas of Methuen, a 19-year-old student here illegally from the Dominican Republic since she was 8 years old, said she had no control over her parents’ decision to come to the United States, but that she wants to contribute to this country. She drew laughter when she waved a receipt from the US government showing that she paid her federal income taxes this year, $476.08, to prove that illegal immigrants pay taxes.

The Internal Revenue Service allows illegal immigrants to file tax returns using a taxpayer identification number and does not report them to federal immigration officials.

Alan, an 18-year-old student from Waltham, wept as he described having been abused as a child in Mexico, then coming to the United States illegally and thriving in school. He has been accepted to a private college, but doubts he can afford the tuition.

“I was 5 years old,’’ he told the committee about coming to this country, “and every day I’m paying for my father’s mistakes.’’

But critics said illegal immigrant students should not benefit from their parents’ decision to break the law. Though proponents of the bill say it would help the economy, critics have said it would offer benefits to illegal immigrants that US citizens from other states cannot claim.

“They’re still here illegally,’’ said Christen Varley, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party, which vowed to fight the bills, though she could not attend the hearing. “If you’re not a legal resident of the state, you’re not entitled to in-state tuition. That’s as simple as it is.’’

Steve Kropper, cochairman of Massachusetts Citizens for Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher immigration laws, criticized the governor for championing the tuition issue when the state’s economy is still hurting.

The bills are sponsored by Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz of Boston, Representative Alice Wolf of Cambridge, and Representative Denise Provost of Somerville, all Democrats.

SLICK MITT ROMNEY UPDATE - ROMNEY wants to spend up to $3 MIL of Utah's Tax $$$ to rig the primary system in his favor

SLICK MITT ROMNEY UPDATE

Looks like the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune sees right through the "shallow as piss on a flat rock" move by ROMNEY to gin up the primary system by trying to move the UTAH Primary at an estimated cost of $2.5 million to $3 million to Utah Taxpayers.

Well, after all, that is the little people's money and why should we care about wasting that??? There's plenty of where that came from after all. We'll just make them pay more...

Is this REALLY what you want to see? Another stuffed shirt with delusions of grandeur, preaching cost cutting to you out of one side of his mouth, while WASTING tax dollars to try & rig the primary system in his own favor.

We have been living under a " DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO " President for the past 2 1/2 years, the last thing we need is another.

To the citizens of UTAH, Tell SLICK MITT to take a flying leap into the Salt Lake as otherwise, he'll be hosing you down for a few million tax dollars that I would suspect are sorely needed elsewhere.

Don’t move primary
Editorial / Salt Lake Tribune

If individual Utah residents want to write a check to support the presidential campaign of Republican Mitt Romney, there is nothing to stop them.

But if Romney backers want the whole body of Utah taxpayers to cough up as much as $3 million to hold an early 2012 primary election, one that would serve no purpose other than to make Romney look good for about a third of the next 24-hour news cycle, that’s asking way too much.

Romney is said to be leaning on his many supporters in Utah political circles — prime among them Lt. Gov. Greg Bell, whose portfolio includes supervising the state’s elections — to move up the state’s presidential primary from late June to sometime in early spring.

The acceptable reason for such a move, which would require an act of the Legislature, would be to make Utah more of a player in the nominating process by drawing the attention of all of the candidates at a point when it still matters.

But the real reason for such a shift would be so Romney could maximize his standing as the favorite candidate of Utah Republican voters and embarrass one of his chief rivals, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Polls show that Romney now outpolls Huntsman among Utah Republicans by a margin of more than 2-1.

Bearding the lion in his own den, which is how Romney would spin a Utah primary victory over Huntsman, would clearly be of more value to Romney if it happened in early March, when the nomination will likely still be up for grabs, rather than June 26, when one, or both, of the candidates with Utah links may already have been eliminated.

Now the state’s presidential primary is set for the same day as the primaries for those seeking state office. It’s a lot cheaper that way. Estimates for having a separate election just for the presidential hopefuls run from $2.5 million to $3 million.

That is money that would be hard to find, and harder to justify, in such tight fiscal times.

It is also doubtful that it would really boost Utah’s profile that much. Other GOP hopefuls would be unlikely to spend much time or money here, knowing that they’d be all but lost in the Mitt vs. Jon tug o’ war.

It’s too late now. But anyone who really wanted to make Utah a destination for presidential candidates would have long ago gotten behind a plan from four years ago to unite with New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Colorado for a real Western States Primary. That would truly offer candidates a trove of delegates worth pursuing.

Of course, that was Jon Huntsman’s idea.
The Salt Lake Tribune.