Scranton Police Union File Grievance After Chief Makes Off-Duty Arrest

Scranton police file grievance after chief makes off-duty arrest
By Steve McConnell (Staff Writer)Published: April 19, 2011
see http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/scranton-police-file-grievance-after-chief-makes-off-duty-arrest-1.1134453#axzz1K5ygE8II

The Scranton police union has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the city for an off-duty drug arrest made by Police Chief Dan Duffy in March.
The complaint, which was filed with the state Labor Relations Board on April 14, takes issue with the chief arresting a man who was allegedly in possession of marijuana because the chief is not a member of the collective bargaining unit and was "off duty" when the March 20 arrest was made.
"I think it's absurd. I'm not going to turn my head on crime that takes place," Chief Duffy said. "I took the same oath (as a police officer) that everyone else took.
"On my day off and I'm driving around as the police chief, and that's wrong?" he asked.
The complaint states that "the work of apprehending and arresting individuals has been the sole and exclusive province of members of the bargaining unit," and that the city did not inform or negotiate with the union that the chief would be "performing bargaining unit work."
Because of this, the union says the city violated the state Labor Relations Act and the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act.
While the chief has been known for several off-duty arrests in the city, the complaint only makes mention of the March 20 incident.
On that day, Chief Duffy said he was not scheduled to work but decided to check on citizen complaints about possible drug activity in a part of West Scranton.
While driving through the area, he arrested a man who had an outstanding bench warrant issued by Lackawanna County Court. The chief also searched the man and allegedly found he possessed a marijuana joint and drug paraphernalia, leading to the man's arrest on drug charges.
Sgt. Martin acknowledged that the chief is "morally and legally obligated" to act if he sees a crime happen and to make an arrest if necessary.
But, the union president said the chief, as member of management, should not actively root out crime or randomly patrol neighborhoods while off duty because it violates union agreements that protect rank-and-file officers' employment. The union is concerned city administrators will have more leverage to lay off police officers because "Chief Duffy will step in" and do the work, Sgt. Martin said.
"It's a perception and it leads to that," he said. "We're threatened with layoffs."
The union is asking an agreement be drawn up about the chief making the arrests.
Chief Duffy said he will not stop patrolling neighborhoods or making arrests if he receives reports from citizens, whether on or off-duty, because of the complaint.
"It's not like I am getting the information and keeping it to myself and playing hero," the chief said. "I will continue to do this. I'm a public servant."
On March 20, while not on duty, Scranton Police Chief Dan Duffy decided to take a drive through West Scranton, following up on complaints about drug activity. He saw a man he had arrested before walking on Division Street, according to arrest papers. Chief Duffy ran his name, confirmed there was a bench warrant issued for his arrest, and pulled him over. "I consider myself always on duty," Chief Duffy said at the time.

Green Energy -Oregon's Electricity Prices to Increase 23.9 Percent

March 25, 2011, see http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20472&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Economic Effect of Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard
"In 2007, Oregon passed Senate Bill 838 (SB 838) which established a state renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The RPS mandates large utilities (those providing 3 percent or more of the state's electricity load) to supply a minimum percentage of electricity sold to retail customers derived from new renewable resources. Specifically, SB 838 requires that Oregon's public electric utilities increase the percentage of electricity generated from new renewable energy sources, say researchers at the Cascade Policy Institute and the Beacon Hill Institute.

Since renewable energy generally costs more than conventional energy, many have voiced concerns about higher electricity rates. Moreover, since Oregon has a limited ability to generate new renewable energy, the state will start from a low power generation base. In addition, some renewable energy sources (wind and solar power in particular) require the installation of conventional backup generation capacity for cloudy, windless days. The need for this backup further boosts the cost of renewable energy.

In the aggregate, the state's electricity consumers will pay $992 million in 2025.
Oregon's electricity prices will increase by an average of 1.73 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), or 23.9 percent, in 2025.
By 2025 the Oregon economy will lose an average of 17,530 jobs, within a range of between 10,025 jobs under the low-cost scenario and 24,630 jobs under the high-cost scenario.
In 2025, the RPS mandate will reduce annual wages by an average of $275 per worker, within a range of between $157 per worker $385 per worker."

Source: David G. Tuerck, Michael Head, and Paul Bachman, "Economic Impact of Oregon's Renewable Portfolio Standard," Cascade Policy Institute/Beacon Hill Institute, March 2011.

Japan Proves Nuclear Power is Safe

See Wall Street Journal Notable and Quotable, Wednesday March 23, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216473287331538.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

"Writer George Monbiot in the Mail and Guardian online, March 22:

"You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear- neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation."

North Dakota Economy Booming 3.8% Unemployment - California 12.4%

See Wall Street Journal MARCH 15, 2011 Why North Dakota Is Booming By JOEL KOTKIN
■ "They're drilling for oil, attracting high tech, and keeping the tax burden moderate. Result: 3.8% unemployment"
■ "progressives in California—which sits on its own prodigious oil supplies—abhor drilling, promising green jobs while suffering double-digit unemployment, higher utility rates and the prospect of mind-numbing new regulations that are designed to combat global warming and are all but certain to depress future growth."
■ "Between 2002 and 2009, state employment in science, technology, engineering and math-related professions grew over 30%, according to EMSI, an economic modeling firm. This is five times the national average."
■ "North Dakota now outperforms the nation in everything from the percentage of college graduates under the age of 45 to per-capita numbers of engineering and science graduates. Median household income in 2009 was $49,450, up from $42,235 in 2000. That 17% increase over the last decade was three times the rate of Massachussetts and more than 10 times that of California."
■ "North Dakota is a right-to-work state, which makes it attractive to new employers, especially in manufacturing"

Why North Dakota Is Booming? 3.8% Unemployment

See Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece by Joel Kotkin
MARCH 15, 2011 Why North Dakota Is Booming
They're drilling for oil, attracting high tech, and keeping the tax burden moderate. Result: 3.8% unemployment..

■ "progressives in California—which sits on its own prodigious oil supplies—abhor drilling, promising green jobs while suffering double-digit unemployment, higher utility rates and the prospect of mind-numbing new regulations that are designed to combat global warming and are all but certain to depress future growth."
■ " Between 2002 and 2009, [North Dakota] state employment in science, technology, engineering and math-related professions grew over 30%, according to EMSI, an economic modeling firm. This is five times the national average.
■ " North Dakota now outperforms the nation in everything from the percentage of college graduates under the age of 45 to per-capita numbers of engineering and science graduates. Median household income in 2009 was $49,450, up from $42,235 in 2000. That 17% increase over the last decade was three times the rate of Massachusetts and more than 10 times that of California."
■ " North Dakota is a right-to-work state, which makes it attractive to new employers, especially in manufacturing"

Michael Barone on Americans' Reaction to the Expansion of Government

See Wall Street Journal FEBRUARY 28, 2011 Notable & Quotable at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703933404576170404203823980.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Michael Barone writing Feb. 26 in the Washington Examiner:

"It's a question that puzzles most liberals and bothers some conservatives. Why are so many modest-income white voters rejecting the Obama Democrats' policies of economic redistribution and embracing the small-government policies of the Tea Party movement?

It's not supposed to work out that way, say the political scientists and New Deal historians. Politics is supposed to be about who gets how much when, and people with modest incomes should be eager to take as much from the rich as they can get. . . . [But people] are entitled to base their vote on the things they think important. . . .

The recoil in 2010 against the Obama Democrats' vast expansion of the size and scope of government seems to have a cultural or a moral dimension . . . It was a vote, as my Washington Examiner colleague Timothy P. Carney wrote last week, expressing "anger at those unfairly getting rich—at the taxpayer's expense."

Those include well-connected Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs that got bailed out and giant corporations like General Electric that shape legislation so they can profit. They include the public-employee unions who have bribed politicians to grant them pensions and benefits unavailable to most Americans.

A government intertwined with the private sector inevitably picks winners and losers. It allows well-positioned insiders to game the system for private gain. It bails out the improvident and sticks those who made prudent decisions with the bill.

Modest-income Americans think this is wrong. They want it fixed more than they want a few more bucks in their paychecks."

Federal Workers Have No Collective-Bargaining Rights

See Feb 26, 2011 Wall Street Journal by John Fund
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166034245532792.html

“[Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker] The governor knows he has become a national lightning rod, but he says he was nonetheless surprised when President Obama jumped into the fray last week by saying that the governor's proposal to limit collective bargaining sounded like "an assault on unions." He finds it ironic that Mr. Obama criticized his collective-bargaining changes when federal workers lack the power to bargain for wages or benefits—a fact demonstrated last month when Mr. Obama imposed a wage freeze on all federal workers. Under Mr. Walker's proposal, Wisconsin unions could still bargain for cost-of-living raises or more if approved by a voter referendum.”

Obama Budget Doubles National Debt to $26.3 Trillion in 10 Years

See http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-budget-nearly-double-national-debt

CBS News Monday, February 14, 2011 by Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – "If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget.

The figures reflect the effects of Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget priorities, particularly a federal deficit that never falls below $500 billion in any year between 2010 and 2021.

The national debt – both debt held by the public and debt held by “government accounts” (the Social Security trust fund chief among them) – was $13.56 trillion on Sept. 30. 2010, the end of fiscal year 2010. (The national debt today, Deb. 14, 2011, is $14.08 trillion.)

In 2021, the national debt will have risen to $26.3 trillion, increasing by $1 trillion every year until 2021. Obama’s budget does not contain any plans for balancing the federal budget or reducing the national debt."

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are Keynesians

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are Keynesians. John Maynard Keynes encouraged deficit spending during economic downturns to increase aggregate demand. This is a hard theory to resist particularly for politicians who address every problem or potential problem with the same solution, to increase the power and size of the government. Keynes postulated that the multiplier effect would boost the economy. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have stated many times that government money going to people who would immediately spend it was best, that is propensity to consume. So the candlestick maker gets some government money, and spends it promptly buying items from an Indian Chief, who promptly makes purchases from the baker, and on and on. The theory is that the economy grows.

Unbelievably, there is no consensus if President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal Keynesian policies worked. Roosevelt took office March 4, 1933, and five years later the country still had 15% unemployment. Prior to the Great Depression, the U.S. economy suffered numerous financial panics and recessions. Despite little Federal Government intervention, the economy bounced back more quickly. So many economists believe that Roosevelt's Keynesian policies prolonged the Depression and delayed recovery.

More recently, Japan embraced Keynesian policies, primarily “investing” in infrastructure. A 2.4% budget surplus in 1991 turned into a deficit of 4.3% by 1996 and 10% by 1998, with the national debt to GDP ratio reaching over 200%. The Keynesian policies did not work and the two decade period is referred to as Japan’s lost decade.

Of course, if Keynesian theory worked, the government really does have to make payments, it could just drop money from helicopters and the economy would grow. Or the government could hire half the unemployed to dig ditches and then hire the other half to fill the ditches back up. The formerly unemployed having a high propensity to spend would then have the candlestick maker, Indian Chief, and baker’s businesses booming. If Keynesian theory worked, Zimbabwe would be a wealthy country.

During the 1930s depression, President Herbert Hoover and Roosevelt kept on increasing tax rates. Roosevelt kept on increasing regulations. Without certainty and a stable tax and regulatory environment, businesses cannot plan and determine which business expansions or new business enterprises will pencil out. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have continued these practices. Imagine you have a business idea, and are using a spreadsheet to forecast your projected revenue and expenses. What do you put down as your expenses for taxes, health care costs, and thanks to proposed cap and trade legislation, energy costs?

The Bush tax cuts have been in place for nearly a decade. Some progressives have referred to this as Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich. However, President Obama said in his December 7, 2010 press conference "A typical working family faced a tax increase of over $3,000 on January 1st".

Congress and President Obama have agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years. Hopefully, the Keynesian policies are at an end, and the government has now provided some certainty to taxpayers so entrepreneurs can consider expanding their current business or to start a new business. Let's hope so.

Yours truly,

Gene Felder

Government Unions vs. Taxpayers

See Wall Street Journal Monday, December 13, 2010 op/ed piece by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009350303578410.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
"Government Unions vs. Taxpayers The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment"

It includes:
"Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion."

"First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama's proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees.
Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities.
Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars."

Bush Tax Cut for the Typical American Family

From the President's press conference:
"Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for the typical American family,"
"And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs."
President Barack Obama Dec 6, 2010

What happened to always calling it Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich?

Obama Copies Japan's Economic Mistakes

See "How to avoid Japan's economic mistakes" By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, November 15, 2010 Washington Post
See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/15/learning_from_japans_mistakes_107948.html

■ "Japan's mistakes that resulted in a 'lost decade' of economic growth."
■ "There is no substitute for vigorous private-sector job creation and investment"
■ "Despite massive stimulus, rapid growth hasn't resumed two decades later."
■ " government debt soared from 63 % of the economy (gross domestic product)…now around 200 percent."

Kyoto Fraud Revealed

See http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/10/14/kyoto-fraud-revealed/ and October 14, 2010 article by Walter Russell Mead. It includes:
■ "When the idiotic Kyoto Protocol was put before the US Senate, 95 senators voted against this confused and destructive initiative on the grounds that, as designed, the measure would simply ship American jobs to China and other countries without reducing greenhouse gasses."
■ "For years, green activists have mourned and bemoaned the shortsightedness of the US. How could we sit out from something so noble, so planet saving, so wise as the sacred Kyoto Protocol?"
■ " The EU ratified Kyoto, and Americans were then treated to years of vainglorious Euro-puffery about the nobility, the wisdom and the self-sacrificial idealism of the cutting edge eco-warriors of the Green Continent."
■ "But a couple of recent studies now seem to show that Kyoto was as big a fraud as the most militant enviro-skeptics ever suspected. The much heralded Protocol was a singularly stupid piece of counterproductive social engineering that encouraged the migration of good jobs to China and other low wage countries — without helping the environment at all."
■ "while the EU’s emission of CO2 declined by 17% between 1990 and 2010, this apparent progress was bogus. If you add up the CO2 released by the goods and services Europeans consumed, as opposed to the CO2 thrown off by the goods and services they produced, the EU was responsible for 40% more CO2 in 2010 than in 1990. The EU, as the Guardian puts it, has been outsourcing pollution — and jobs — rather than cutting back on greenhouse gasses."

Tax System Explained in Beer

Tax System explained in beer….
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $ 5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the
restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $ 20,'declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a Dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more
than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the
breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay thehighest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Could Panic Have Been Prevented? Did Government Regulation and Judgement Fail?

See Robert Samuelson coulmn September 13, 2010
Could Panic Have Been Prevented? at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/13/could_panic_have_been_prevented_107118.html

WASHINGTON -- It's been two years since Lehman Brothers failed (Sept. 15, 2008), and we still can't conclusively answer this question: What if the government had saved Lehman? Its bankruptcy was pivotal. Until then, deteriorating housing and mortgage markets had triggered what seemed a serious -- but not unprecedented -- recession. Once Lehman failed, the economy went into a frenzied free fall. It's hard not to wonder whether some of the ensuing turmoil could have been avoided.

Consider what happened after Lehman:

Receive news alerts

Sign Up

Robert Samuelson RealClearPolitics
Lehman Brothers Barclays

Ben Bernanke Henry Paulson
Timothy Geithner US Federal Reserve
Washington
[+] More
-- Credit tightened. Banks wouldn't lend to each other, except at exorbitant interest rates. Rates on high-quality corporate bonds went from 7 percent in August to nearly 10 percent by October.

-- Stocks tanked. After its historical high of about 14,100 in October 2007, the Dow Jones industrial average was still trading around 11,400 before the bankruptcy. By October, it was about 8,400; by March 2009, 6,600.

-- Consumer spending and business investment (on machinery, computers, buildings) -- together about four-fifths of the economy -- declined sharply. Already-depressed vehicle sales fell a third from August to February.

-- Employment collapsed. Five million payroll jobs disappeared in the eight months following Lehman's collapse. The unemployment rate went from 6.2 percent in September to 9.5 percent in June 2009.

Lehman's failure had dire consequences because it suggested that government had lost control of events. No one knew which financial institutions would be protected and which wouldn't; AIG soon received a massive loan. Uncertainty rose; panic followed.

Worried they'd lose normal credit, companies hoarded cash by cutting jobs, investment and inventories. Disappearing work and wealth (stock losses from September 2008 to March 2009 totaled $3.9 trillion, reports Wilshire Associates) caused consumers to postpone discretionary purchases: cars, homes, appliances.

The explanations of why Lehman was allowed to fail have subtly shifted in two years. Over that weekend of Sept. 13 and 14, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy Geithner desperately tried to organize a private-sector rescue. They almost succeeded. They persuaded a consortium of other banks to assume $30 billion worth of Lehman's weakest investments. It seemed that Barclays, a major English bank, would buy Lehman, but British regulators raised last-minute objections.

At that point, only the U.S. government could have saved Lehman, which faced a self-fulfilling crisis of confidence. Its customers and lenders were fleeing because they feared they might not be paid. Someone with deep pockets had to stand behind Lehman to assuage these anxieties.

The standard explanation now from Paulson and Bernanke of why they refused is that legally they couldn't do otherwise. The Treasury said it lacked authority to make an investment; the Federal Reserve could lend but only if Lehman had adequate collateral, which was allegedly missing. That's the story now, but after Lehman's bankruptcy, the emphasis was different.

"I never once considered that it was appropriate to put taxpayer money on the line in resolving Lehman Brothers," Paulson said. Indeed, his position initially drew praise as standing up to Wall Street. Bernanke gave similar justifications. Testifying to Congress Sept. 23, he said that "the troubles at Lehman had been well known ... (and) we judged that investors ... had had time to take precautionary measures."

In truth, an informal consensus had formed against using government funds to save Lehman. Harsh criticism of the earlier rescue of Bear Stearns -- done with Bush administration support and Fed money -- had left a deep scar. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has published e-mails reflecting the mood. On Sept. 9, Treasury chief of staff Jim Wilkinson wrote that he couldn't "stomach us bailing out lehman (sic). Will be horrible in the press." Given this bias, there was no Plan B once Barclays withdrew its offer.

Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner later performed commendably in preventing a wider financial collapse and restoring confidence that, arguably, averted a second Great Depression. Though their measures (TARP, government loan guarantees and Fed lending facilities) were unpopular, they ultimately calmed markets. But the lingering question is whether Paulson & Co. were cleaning up a mess they helped create. Even now, it's unclear whether Lehman lacked sufficient collateral to justify a loan. There was a "senseless panic" argues William Isaac, former head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., in a book with that title.

Or perhaps not. Maybe saving Lehman would merely have postponed panic and requests for broader powers to deal with a weakening financial system. Citigroup and Bank of America, among others, needed help. The nature of crisis is that people are surprised and overwhelmed by events, and in that sense, the mistakes made in dealing with Lehman might have been unavoidable. One way or another, the first draft of history is still being written -- and it remains very rough.

Calif. Rep. Devin Nunes's nuclear proposal would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic plan on the table

See Wall Street Journal Friday, July 30, 2010 by Kimberly Strassel

at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703578104575397652539348486.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

"Mr. Nunes's interest is how to answer these concerns in a more free-market way. The Californian's road map is the product of years of work, most recently with Mr. Ryan and a handful of Republicans with energy expertise—Illinois's John Shimkus, Utah's Rob Bishop, and Idaho's Mike Simpson. It's a bill designed to produce energy, not restrict it. It returns government to the role of energy facilitator, not energy boss. It costs nothing and contains no freebies. It instead offers a competitive twist to government support of renewable energy.

The bill is unabashedly focused on allowing America to responsibly access more of its own low-cost resources. It opens up more of the Outer Continental Shelf, and takes another run at opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It restores the leasing for Western oil shale that the Obama administration has squelched.

Rather than throw federal loan guarantees at uncertain nuclear plants, the legislation attacks the true problem: bureaucratic roadblocks. It streamlines a creaky regulatory process, requires the timely up-or-down approval of 200 plants over 30 years, and offers new flexibility for dealing with nuclear waste. Mr. Nunes likes to point out that his nuclear provision alone would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic proposal in existence. And it would in fact create, ahem, green jobs."

Public Service Pensions Unsustainable Says NJ State Senate President

Public Service Pensions Unsustainable Says NJ State Senate President June 30 2010

Federal stimulus funds used "just like throwing it away".

KCRW public radio program "To the Point"
WED JUN 30, 2010 "Stimulus or Austerity?: That Is the Question"
Host: Warren Olney

Listen to this Los Angeles public radio interview show by Warren Olney June 30, 2010 at
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp100630stimulus_or_austerit

I downloaded it to attached to this email. After seeing it was 23 megabytes, I removed it.

Stephen Sweeney, President, New Jersey State Senate and also an official in New Jersey’s Iron Workers' Union

This guy is great. Sounds like a Democrat who gets it.

It is so hard to believe. His portion is towards the end of the program starting at 37 minutes.

Here's some of Stephen Sweeney's comments, not a great transcript, but pretty close:
• 37 minutes "elected officials bypassed the collective bargaining process, the costs of elections and gave benefits, expanded benefits, that they could not pay for"
• "basically the politicians gave the workers what they asked for and they destroyed the system"
• "our pensions will be bankrupt probably in another five or six years" .. "for political purposes enhancing benefits and to sustain favor with people, in the long run hurting their workers"
• 38.4 "our system we have is not sustainable"
• 38.5 the federal aid to states "plans that I've seen pass out of Washington…used billions of dollars what we did was use the money to plug shortfalls in existing programs instead of dealing with the issues"
• 39.1 "infrastructure improvement, building schools was a better plan, when they turned the money over to the States it was just like throwing it away"
• 42.2 stimulus money should "not to States to fund their budgets, why I said the money was thrown away, state governments and local governments did not have to deal with the financial crises, they pushed it off. If we had taken the money for improving infrastructure, building roads, and schools where you would actually have something for years to come made more sense to me"
• 43.1 "The billions of dollars that we spent in the State of New Jersey basically we were just trying to hide the inevitable"
• "This year we cut $800 million dollars out of school aid; you know, we should have cut a billion dollars last year"
• Question from Warren Olney "And you're an official in the Iron Workers Union? Are you a Democrat as well? Response from Stephen Sweeney "Yes, I am".
• 43.4 "I come from the private sector unions where my employers can go out of business. There's a thought process where because we're government you cannot go out of business. You can always tax more. That model is not working anymore."

The whole program is good including comments by a Harvard professor wanting to slow down federal spending.

Obama Plan: The Jimmy Carter Jobs Credit

The Jimmy Carter Jobs Credit
Congress's latest stimulus idea is a bust from the past.

See Wall Street Journal editorial Feb 10, 2010 at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055394016616742.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion


"Stimulus Plan A didn't work to create jobs or reduce unemployment. That was the $165 billion of tax rebates and money for states in February 2008.

Plan B flopped too. That was last February's stimulus that has devoted $862 billion into mostly government programs. The unemployment rate climbed steadily until last month, and the main lasting impact has been nearly $1 trillion added to the national debt.

Now comes Plan C, another February stimulus, though this time everyone has been instructed not to use the "s word," lest it scare the voters. This one is a "jobs bill," as if Plans A and B were about something else. Don't expect this one to work any better than the last two.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Former President Jimmy Carter
.This latest Senate Democratic bill will cost $85 billion and is shaping up to be largely a rehash of last year's stimulus: extended unemployment insurance, Medicaid cash for the states, and some public works spending. The one new twist is a proposal for a one-year $5,000 tax credit for small businesses for each new worker hired. President Obama calls the credit "the best way to cut taxes" to help small businesses.

But we've also seen this economic movie before—in 1977 under Jimmy Carter. During the two years it was in effect, a jobs credit worth about $7,000 in today's dollars became a $20 billion free lunch as businesses claimed the handout for one of every three new employees.

In the short term, the Jimmy Carter jobs credit appeared to reduce unemployment. The jobless rate dropped by 1.2 percentage points (to 5.8% in 1979 from 7% in 1977). But that effect was short-lived, and when the subsidies ended two years later the layoffs resumed and the unemployment rate rose again and by 1980 was back to 7.2%."

Officials say stimulus bill to cost $75B more

See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DFNU4O1&show_article=1

Officials say stimulus bill to cost $75B more

Jan 26, 2010
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - "Last year's $787 billion economic stimulus bill is going to be even more expensive—$75 billion more.

The new Congressional Budget Office estimate, released Tuesday, provides more ammunition for Republicans who say the stimulus has been long on spending and short on creating promised jobs. The additional cost also eats into the savings forecast from the budget freeze President Barack Obama is expected to propose Wednesday night during his State of the Union address.

Almost half of the additional cost, $34 billion, is because the food stamp program won't be able to take advantage of lower-than-expected inflation rates and will instead have benefits set by the stimulus bill.

Higher unemployment insurance costs added $21 billion to the bill, and stimulus-subsidized bonds to pay for infrastructure projects have proven more popular than expected with state and local governments.

The $75 billion increase would erase one-third of the $250 billion in 10-year savings that would come from the partial domestic spending freeze being proposed by Obama. The boost in unemployment payments alone would more than erase the $10 billion to $15 billion in first-year savings from such a freeze.

Democrats say the beleaguered stimulus measure, a mixture of tax cuts and lots of spending, has helped keep the economy going and has produced up to 2 million jobs.

The nonpartisan CBO said five programs were responsible for most of the $112 billion in stimulus spending between last February and October: Medicaid; a $250 payment to almost 53 million Social Security recipients; Pell Grants; and fiscal relief for state governments. Tax cuts added $88 billion.

The stimulus is expected to add about $400 billion to the deficit in this budget year.

Democrats are pressing for another stimulus measure and top Senate Democrats have drafted an $82.5 billion jobs plan that would help small businesses, boost spending on road construction and mass transit, and give local governments money to retain teachers.

A draft document obtained by The Associated Press proposes $20 billion for a job creation tax credit and $12.5 billion to retrofit homes and businesses to make them more energy efficient.

The House passed a so-called jobs bill last month, costing about $174 billion. That plan was heavy with safety net spending such as a six-month extension of unemployment benefits and subsidies to help the jobless buy health insurance.

Democrats claim their proposals are partly paid for by repealing $150 billion worth of Treasury Department bailout authority to claim $75 billion in budget savings. But CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said those claims are based on outdated estimates.

Since the remaining bailout money won't be used, it can't be claimed as savings, he said.

"There really isn't money there to be saved," Elmendorf said."

How Is President Obama Doing?

How Is President Obama doing?

See January 25, 2010 Wall Street Journal "The President's Bank Reforms Don't Add Up" op/ed piece by Peter J. Wallison at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704509704575019333516533828.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

"Restricting loans to real estate virtually guarantees another bank crisis in the future."

"After the Democrats' disaster in Massachusetts last Tuesday, President Obama appears to be flailing. Gone is the cool and measured demeanor that made him look presidential when the financial crisis struck during the 2008 campaign. Instead, the financial reform proposals he advanced later in the week seem to reflect political panic—a desperate attempt to appeal to the populist sentiment against Wall Street. Unfortunately, they also reflect a limited understanding of good financial or banking policy."