Thaddeus McCotter has been a Congressman from Michigan for 10 years. The Republican was almost guaranteed reelection since reapportionment gives his District more Republicans than Democrats.
The 46 year old Congressman though has always been unconventional. He’s cool, a guitar player who loves to jam rather than raise campaign funds or engage in the usual party building, solidarity activities.
Congressman McCotter is so cool that he declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination for President last year. He initially considered running against the Democratic Senator, Debbie Stabenow, but then aimed higher. He discovered in a couple of months why Representatives don’t get the traction of Senators in primary season. James A. Garfield in 1880 was the only Congressman directly elected to the Presidency, and he was assassinated after 6 months in office.
After listening to the Sound of Silence during the early primary season, he decided to run for reelection. Michigan’s qualifying rules for entering a primary, such as for reelection to Congress, are relatively simple; submit between 1,000 to 2,000 valid signatures on original petitions to be verified by the Secretary of State.
That should be a slam dunk for an established incumbent. The staff or county central committee should be able to obtain the requisite signatures in a nanosecond.
His campaign submitted 1,830 signatures, a sufficient margin of error under ordinary circumstances.
However, someone, still unnamed, goofed royally and perhaps criminally.
The Secretary of State threw out all but 244 signatures. The rest were duplicates, on photocopied – not original - petitions, or had dates changed, as if they had been lifted off earlier campaign petitions. The Attorney General’s Office is investigating for voter fraud. Four St. Joseph County Democratic officials in neighboring Indiana were indicted for election fraud last April. They forged signatures in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary to place Senators Obama and Clinton on the ballot.
The only Republican on the ballot is a teacher, who’s also a Tea Party enthusiast, raises reindeer, and plays Santa. The two Democrats on the ballot are a doctor and a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat who wants President Obama impeached.
The Republican primary will now have a number of write-in candidates. Congressman McCotter mulled a write-in campaign, and then announced this week that he would retire from Congress. The once rising star of the republican Party last Saturday said “one can’t clean up a mess multitasking.”
Has his political career been ended by negligence, sloth, or sabotage? Is the damage self-inflicted? Is he the victim of a conspiracy?
It's definitely a unique way to implode a campaign, not as sexy as Anthony Weiner, but more intriguing.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Lessons From Wisconsin, San Diego, San Jose, Central Falls and Providence
The public employee unions are nursing their wounds yesterday from Wisconsin, San Diego, and San Jose. The public employee unions got hammered in Wisconsin yesterday.
They asked for it; they deserved it. Regardless of the union’s anger over the Republican’s union busting statute, they should not have started the recall unless they had a strong chance of winning..
They lost the recall election yesterday in Wisconsin by a decisive margin. Thus the union busting reforms of Wisconsin will remain in effect.
Just as significant voters in San Diego and San Jose, California voted to cut public employee pensions. San Jose is a Democratic city with a Democratic Mayor while San Diego is Republican with a Republican Mayor. Both cities’ budget are essentially broke due to union contracts, especially the underfunded pension plans.
San Jose spent $73 million in pension costs in 2001, but $245 million this year. Pension costs now chew up 27% of the general fund. The city has reduced its work force by 27% over the past ten years. It has built 4 new libraries and one police station, but lacks the personnel to staff them.
San Diego spent $43 million on pensions in 1999. This year the pension costs, $231.2 million, equal 20% of the general fund. It has cut 14% of its employees since 2005.
The joke is that at current rates cities like San Diego, San Jose, and Stockton, which is approaching bankruptcy, will have to shrink their work force to just one employee, whose job will be to administer the benefits.
San Jose approved the cuts with a 70% approval rate, while San Diego was slightly behind with 66%. These votes send a message.
The unions in San Diego and San Jose did not contest the elections, realizing that they would lose. Instead, they prepared law suits, hoping to find a favorable judge who would strike down the new rules.
As compared to Wisconsin, the voters in San Diego and San Jose did not strip the unions of their collective bargaining rights.
Let us now look to the two Rhode Island cities of Central Falls and Providence. Both were approaching bankruptcy due to the benefits and pension liabilities. The unions in Central falls refused to grant concessions, so the city entered bankruptcy, where the unions ran the risk of losing the benefits. They entered into an agreement with Central Falls trustee to cut the health benefits and pensions.
The Providence public employee unions saw the writing on the wall. Last week they entered into an agreement with the city to forgo pension retirees cost of living increases for 11 years, cap pensions payouts at 150% of the state’s median household income, and transfer retirees 65 and over into Medicare.
The unions otherwise retain their collective bargaining rights.
Let us remember that Governor Walker initially approached the unions about contributing to their health insurance and pension plans. The unions, out of the arrogance possessed by many public employee unions, brushed the Governor off. The rest is now history.
The moral of the story is that irrespective of the political power possessed by these unions in recent years, the public fisc is broke and the public knows it.
States like California and Illinois may hold out longer, but the benefits cannot last. The states cannot raise taxes fast enough to cover the escalating pension costs. The states, counties, cities, towns, and school districts are broke.
President Obama is not going to enact another Stimulus Bill to bail out the public sector employees for two years. He simply postponed the day of fiscal reckoning.
The unions have four choices: 1) sit down and meaningfully negotiate cuts, 2) let the voters, perhaps vindictively do it for them, 3) let the legislature do it, or win in the courts through litigation.
The first has the benefit of retaining collective bargaining rights. The alternative in many states will be a replay of Wisconsin.
The union wounds yesterday are not mortal; they should serve as a wakeup call.
They asked for it; they deserved it. Regardless of the union’s anger over the Republican’s union busting statute, they should not have started the recall unless they had a strong chance of winning..
They lost the recall election yesterday in Wisconsin by a decisive margin. Thus the union busting reforms of Wisconsin will remain in effect.
Just as significant voters in San Diego and San Jose, California voted to cut public employee pensions. San Jose is a Democratic city with a Democratic Mayor while San Diego is Republican with a Republican Mayor. Both cities’ budget are essentially broke due to union contracts, especially the underfunded pension plans.
San Jose spent $73 million in pension costs in 2001, but $245 million this year. Pension costs now chew up 27% of the general fund. The city has reduced its work force by 27% over the past ten years. It has built 4 new libraries and one police station, but lacks the personnel to staff them.
San Diego spent $43 million on pensions in 1999. This year the pension costs, $231.2 million, equal 20% of the general fund. It has cut 14% of its employees since 2005.
The joke is that at current rates cities like San Diego, San Jose, and Stockton, which is approaching bankruptcy, will have to shrink their work force to just one employee, whose job will be to administer the benefits.
San Jose approved the cuts with a 70% approval rate, while San Diego was slightly behind with 66%. These votes send a message.
The unions in San Diego and San Jose did not contest the elections, realizing that they would lose. Instead, they prepared law suits, hoping to find a favorable judge who would strike down the new rules.
As compared to Wisconsin, the voters in San Diego and San Jose did not strip the unions of their collective bargaining rights.
Let us now look to the two Rhode Island cities of Central Falls and Providence. Both were approaching bankruptcy due to the benefits and pension liabilities. The unions in Central falls refused to grant concessions, so the city entered bankruptcy, where the unions ran the risk of losing the benefits. They entered into an agreement with Central Falls trustee to cut the health benefits and pensions.
The Providence public employee unions saw the writing on the wall. Last week they entered into an agreement with the city to forgo pension retirees cost of living increases for 11 years, cap pensions payouts at 150% of the state’s median household income, and transfer retirees 65 and over into Medicare.
The unions otherwise retain their collective bargaining rights.
Let us remember that Governor Walker initially approached the unions about contributing to their health insurance and pension plans. The unions, out of the arrogance possessed by many public employee unions, brushed the Governor off. The rest is now history.
The moral of the story is that irrespective of the political power possessed by these unions in recent years, the public fisc is broke and the public knows it.
States like California and Illinois may hold out longer, but the benefits cannot last. The states cannot raise taxes fast enough to cover the escalating pension costs. The states, counties, cities, towns, and school districts are broke.
President Obama is not going to enact another Stimulus Bill to bail out the public sector employees for two years. He simply postponed the day of fiscal reckoning.
The unions have four choices: 1) sit down and meaningfully negotiate cuts, 2) let the voters, perhaps vindictively do it for them, 3) let the legislature do it, or win in the courts through litigation.
The first has the benefit of retaining collective bargaining rights. The alternative in many states will be a replay of Wisconsin.
The union wounds yesterday are not mortal; they should serve as a wakeup call.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Disneyland's New Premium annual Passport
The Godfather: “Make him an offer he can’t refuse.”
Disneyland’s New Annual Passport: “Make them an offer they can’t accept.”
Disneyland just announced its prices for annual passports. It doesn’t want your business.
The price for the premium annual passport, the one with 365 day access to both parks Disneyland and California Adventure), free parking, and dinning and merchandise discounts was increased 30% from $499 to $649, in other words, $2,000 for a family of four. You can obtain 4 annual passes to Knott’s Berry Farm or Universal Studios for less than $600, if you purchase at the right time.
The price was only $199 a few years ago.
For true Disney aficionados you can acquire a super premium pass that grants access to the 2 Disneyland parks and 4 Disney World parks for $850.
The lesser passports, which exclude specific days and periods and do not include parking, were similarly increased in price. The single day passport for one park only went up to $87, not including parking and the overpriced trinkets, food and drink. The daily pass was only $14 in 1984.
Disneyland has been raising prices at a higher rate than college tuition.
Obviously Disneyland is free to charge what it wants and consumers can pay, downgrade, or walk away as they wish. Disney clearly believes in cash flow, so why did it price the annual passports to discourage sales?
Is the current management of Disney trying to convert Walt Disney’s dream of a park open to everybody to one for the Top 1%?
Is Disney trying to recoup the $1.1 billion it just poured into California Adventure as it digs out of Michael Eisner’s failed bean counting adventure to save money?
Are Disney’s managements excessively greedy along the lines of “All the traffic will bear”?
Has Mickey turned into Scrooge?
Or is Disney intentionally trying to turn away business?
Disneyland has become too successful with 16 million guests last year. The roughly 85 acres of actual attractions have a capacity between 75,000 – 85,000 guests, vendors and employees with an additional spillover of 32,000 at California Adventure.
Disney has about 1 million annual passes outstanding. The crazy thing about annual passholders is that they want their moneys worth, so they use the passports, an average of ten visits annually. The premium passholders can use them any day of the year, even in peak summer and Christmas seasons when the visitors flood Disneyland.
The result is that the visitors may be squeezed out of the Happiest Place on Earth.
Disney wants to retain their goodwill although it needs the local Southern California residents during the off seasons. There’s no Magic in the Magic Kingdom when the 85 acres are jammed to capacity, as is increasingly happening. Families that travel 1,000 – 2,000 miles to visit the Happiest Place on Earth are not happy when they are turned away, shunted off to California Adventure, or have to stand in 2 hour lines.
Disney does not like Grumpy guests at the Happiest Place on Earth.
Disneyland’s New Annual Passport: “Make them an offer they can’t accept.”
Disneyland just announced its prices for annual passports. It doesn’t want your business.
The price for the premium annual passport, the one with 365 day access to both parks Disneyland and California Adventure), free parking, and dinning and merchandise discounts was increased 30% from $499 to $649, in other words, $2,000 for a family of four. You can obtain 4 annual passes to Knott’s Berry Farm or Universal Studios for less than $600, if you purchase at the right time.
The price was only $199 a few years ago.
For true Disney aficionados you can acquire a super premium pass that grants access to the 2 Disneyland parks and 4 Disney World parks for $850.
The lesser passports, which exclude specific days and periods and do not include parking, were similarly increased in price. The single day passport for one park only went up to $87, not including parking and the overpriced trinkets, food and drink. The daily pass was only $14 in 1984.
Disneyland has been raising prices at a higher rate than college tuition.
Obviously Disneyland is free to charge what it wants and consumers can pay, downgrade, or walk away as they wish. Disney clearly believes in cash flow, so why did it price the annual passports to discourage sales?
Is the current management of Disney trying to convert Walt Disney’s dream of a park open to everybody to one for the Top 1%?
Is Disney trying to recoup the $1.1 billion it just poured into California Adventure as it digs out of Michael Eisner’s failed bean counting adventure to save money?
Are Disney’s managements excessively greedy along the lines of “All the traffic will bear”?
Has Mickey turned into Scrooge?
Or is Disney intentionally trying to turn away business?
Disneyland has become too successful with 16 million guests last year. The roughly 85 acres of actual attractions have a capacity between 75,000 – 85,000 guests, vendors and employees with an additional spillover of 32,000 at California Adventure.
Disney has about 1 million annual passes outstanding. The crazy thing about annual passholders is that they want their moneys worth, so they use the passports, an average of ten visits annually. The premium passholders can use them any day of the year, even in peak summer and Christmas seasons when the visitors flood Disneyland.
The result is that the visitors may be squeezed out of the Happiest Place on Earth.
Disney wants to retain their goodwill although it needs the local Southern California residents during the off seasons. There’s no Magic in the Magic Kingdom when the 85 acres are jammed to capacity, as is increasingly happening. Families that travel 1,000 – 2,000 miles to visit the Happiest Place on Earth are not happy when they are turned away, shunted off to California Adventure, or have to stand in 2 hour lines.
Disney does not like Grumpy guests at the Happiest Place on Earth.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
California's Fraudulent 9/11 License Plates and Tax Increases
Personalized license plates are a large source of revenue for cash-starved states with little expense courtesy of prison factories. For example, California has reaped $250 million from its ten specialty plates. If residents wish to pay extra for such a plate, then that’s a matter of personal choice.
But not when the state markets them through false and misleading statements, that if communicated by a private party or enterprise, could lead to civil or criminal prosecutions or otherwise violate consumer protection statutes.
California’s legislature enacted a specialty license plate after 9/11. An American Flag is partially obscured by clouds and the slogan “We shall never forget.” The personalized plates cost $50 to purchase and then an additional $40/year. California has collected $15 million from these plates over the past decade.
The Department of Motor Vehicle’s web page provided until last week that the plates’ purpose is “to fund scholarships for the children of Californians who died in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and help California’s law enforcement fight threats of terrorism.”
This published statement was technically true in that 15% of the funds were initially set aside for scholarships.” However, the state’s treasurer cancelled the scholarship program in 2005 after disbursing only $21,381 in scholarships. That barely covers one year of tuition, fees, room and board at a University of California campus.
The continuation of the scholarship purpose is a misrepresentation that could be labeled fraud in the private sector.
40% of the funds have gone to anti-terror training programs, but the remaining funds have been diverted to other purposes, of which the most outrageous is $3 million being “borrowed” by Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown to the general fund.
That California’s politicians would use the American tragedy of 9/11 to fleece California drivers is reprehensible.
Remember Vice president Al Gore in 2000 campaigning on “lock boxes.” Lock boxes do not exist with government funds. Green is green. Revenues are fungible. Monies can be transferred from account to account, so long as the legislature approves.
That brings us to California’s current, recurrent budget crisis. California’s budget deficit is a bottomless pit. The legislature and governors on a bi-partisan basis attempt to paper over the deficits with smoke and mirrors.
Once again this year a “balanced” budget was enacted with excessive enthusiasm. It has once again fallen apart.
With half the budget gone the state was looking at a $9.2 billion deficit in January. The deficit rose to an estimated $16 billion in May, and may reach $19 billion by the end of the year. Income tax revenues fell $3.5 billion short of estimates while spending rose $2.1 billion.
Governor Brown’s proposal is to “temporarily” raise the sales tax to 7.5% and impose a surtax on millionaires. He defines “temporary” as 7 years and millionaires as those earning $250,000 annually since $250,000/year times 4 years equals a million dollars. I hope Yale taught the Governor more than that.
The highest tax rate on millionaires will rise to 13.4%. The current marginal tax rate of 9.3% kicks in at an income of $48,000.
California has a 10.9% unemployment rate, worse than all states except Nevada and Rhode Island. 2 million Californians are unemployed while a net 1.6 million residents have left the state since 2000. Businesses are fleeing the state. The state’s business climate is ranked worse in the nation. Expensive housing, high taxes, excessive bureaucracy, high utility costs are crippling the economy.
48% of the state’s residents do not pay income taxes, so California relies excessively on the so called 1% to carry the state.
12% of the nation’s population resides in the state, but 1/3 of the nation’s welfare recipients are in California.
The Governor’s response is to raise taxes. Instead of trying to broaden the economic base of the state, the Governor’s approach is to squeeze larger amount exactions from a shrinking base – a proven recipe for economic disaster. Governor is acquiring the reputation as the Greece of the United States.
His published agenda is to plug the budget deficit by raising an additional $6-7 billion annually in tax revenues. Unless the revenue increases are approved the higher education systems, the University of California and the California state University Systems will be slashed. The Presidents of UC and Cal State are advocating for the tax increases.
The Governor’s budget plan though calls for an additional $7 billion in expenditures, mostly to cover pension liabilities. The legislature will gladly pass the spending increases, but the expected tax revenues will not come in. The deficit will rise.
In short, Governor Brown is peddling snake oil to the voters. He’s selling tax increases to solve the state’s budget problems, but his purpose is to spend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted the above on June 3. The Orange County Register had an article yesterday that qualified families were not told of the scholarship fund, or of they applied, were informed they were ineligible.
But not when the state markets them through false and misleading statements, that if communicated by a private party or enterprise, could lead to civil or criminal prosecutions or otherwise violate consumer protection statutes.
California’s legislature enacted a specialty license plate after 9/11. An American Flag is partially obscured by clouds and the slogan “We shall never forget.” The personalized plates cost $50 to purchase and then an additional $40/year. California has collected $15 million from these plates over the past decade.
The Department of Motor Vehicle’s web page provided until last week that the plates’ purpose is “to fund scholarships for the children of Californians who died in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and help California’s law enforcement fight threats of terrorism.”
This published statement was technically true in that 15% of the funds were initially set aside for scholarships.” However, the state’s treasurer cancelled the scholarship program in 2005 after disbursing only $21,381 in scholarships. That barely covers one year of tuition, fees, room and board at a University of California campus.
The continuation of the scholarship purpose is a misrepresentation that could be labeled fraud in the private sector.
40% of the funds have gone to anti-terror training programs, but the remaining funds have been diverted to other purposes, of which the most outrageous is $3 million being “borrowed” by Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown to the general fund.
That California’s politicians would use the American tragedy of 9/11 to fleece California drivers is reprehensible.
Remember Vice president Al Gore in 2000 campaigning on “lock boxes.” Lock boxes do not exist with government funds. Green is green. Revenues are fungible. Monies can be transferred from account to account, so long as the legislature approves.
That brings us to California’s current, recurrent budget crisis. California’s budget deficit is a bottomless pit. The legislature and governors on a bi-partisan basis attempt to paper over the deficits with smoke and mirrors.
Once again this year a “balanced” budget was enacted with excessive enthusiasm. It has once again fallen apart.
With half the budget gone the state was looking at a $9.2 billion deficit in January. The deficit rose to an estimated $16 billion in May, and may reach $19 billion by the end of the year. Income tax revenues fell $3.5 billion short of estimates while spending rose $2.1 billion.
Governor Brown’s proposal is to “temporarily” raise the sales tax to 7.5% and impose a surtax on millionaires. He defines “temporary” as 7 years and millionaires as those earning $250,000 annually since $250,000/year times 4 years equals a million dollars. I hope Yale taught the Governor more than that.
The highest tax rate on millionaires will rise to 13.4%. The current marginal tax rate of 9.3% kicks in at an income of $48,000.
California has a 10.9% unemployment rate, worse than all states except Nevada and Rhode Island. 2 million Californians are unemployed while a net 1.6 million residents have left the state since 2000. Businesses are fleeing the state. The state’s business climate is ranked worse in the nation. Expensive housing, high taxes, excessive bureaucracy, high utility costs are crippling the economy.
48% of the state’s residents do not pay income taxes, so California relies excessively on the so called 1% to carry the state.
12% of the nation’s population resides in the state, but 1/3 of the nation’s welfare recipients are in California.
The Governor’s response is to raise taxes. Instead of trying to broaden the economic base of the state, the Governor’s approach is to squeeze larger amount exactions from a shrinking base – a proven recipe for economic disaster. Governor is acquiring the reputation as the Greece of the United States.
His published agenda is to plug the budget deficit by raising an additional $6-7 billion annually in tax revenues. Unless the revenue increases are approved the higher education systems, the University of California and the California state University Systems will be slashed. The Presidents of UC and Cal State are advocating for the tax increases.
The Governor’s budget plan though calls for an additional $7 billion in expenditures, mostly to cover pension liabilities. The legislature will gladly pass the spending increases, but the expected tax revenues will not come in. The deficit will rise.
In short, Governor Brown is peddling snake oil to the voters. He’s selling tax increases to solve the state’s budget problems, but his purpose is to spend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted the above on June 3. The Orange County Register had an article yesterday that qualified families were not told of the scholarship fund, or of they applied, were informed they were ineligible.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Mayor Bloomberg Wants the Big Apple to Slim Down
The Big Apple Wants to Slim Down
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City yesterday proposed a ban on sweetened drinks over 16 ounces in size.
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City today issued a proclamation celebrating National Doughnut Day.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Half of adult New Yorkers are overweight and Type 2 diabetes is becoming a problem.
The solution therefore lies in banning Coke and Pepsi, but pigging out on Krispy Kremes.
One problem when Big Brother attempts to legislate conduct is that the resulting restrictions can appear incredibly arbitrary and capricious.
For example, the Mayor’s purported ban only limits the size of the drink – not the number purchased. Thus the vendor could offer a twofer for 2 16 oz beverages instead of one 24oz drink. The extra sugar would be legal. Similarly the proposed ban does ban refills, even unlimited refills.
The proposed restrictions would apply to purveyors regulated by the New York City Board of Health, limiting it to restaurants, movie theatres, sports venues, and street vendors. It does not apply therefore to grocery stores, convenience stores (You can still get a Big Gulp at a 7-11 in the Big Apple), newsstands or vending machines. Look for the specials on 2 liters sodas at the local store.
It excludes dairy based beverages, such as milk shakes or your favorite latte at Starbucks, as long as it’s over 51% dairy. A daily dose of large lattes can add to your waistline very quickly.
Nor does it apply to fruit juices, which can contain large levels of sugar.
It is inapplicable to beer or alcohol. Beer, even light beer, is fattening.
It is therefore legal to start the morning out with a latte, have a shake at lunch, and finish the evening with a few brewskis.
Many of the Big Apple’s pretzel vendors also sell Dove Bar ice creams cones, or competing ice cream products. No limit is imposed on these succulent delights.
Recent studies show that consuming diet drinks in lieu of sugared sodas has no effect on weight gains. The reasons aren’t yet fully understood, but the reality is that diet drinks are not a panacea.
Questions arise: First, why a 16oz limit? Why not 12oz, or some other arbitrary figure?
Second, what’s happened to individual liberty and personal choice?
Third, why do we continue to underestimate the ingenuity of teenagers in seeking out the junk foods of their choice as schools impose restrictions on school lunches and vending machines when the empirical evidence shows these restrictions have been as effective as Prohibition or the War on Drugs?
Fourth, why will these new restrictions be any more successful than earlier bans on Happy Meals, fast food restaurants, and booster activities?
Fifth, will New York City anoint several of New York’s finest as food police?
Sixth, doesn’t New York City have “bigger” problems than the size of sodas?
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City yesterday proposed a ban on sweetened drinks over 16 ounces in size.
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City today issued a proclamation celebrating National Doughnut Day.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Half of adult New Yorkers are overweight and Type 2 diabetes is becoming a problem.
The solution therefore lies in banning Coke and Pepsi, but pigging out on Krispy Kremes.
One problem when Big Brother attempts to legislate conduct is that the resulting restrictions can appear incredibly arbitrary and capricious.
For example, the Mayor’s purported ban only limits the size of the drink – not the number purchased. Thus the vendor could offer a twofer for 2 16 oz beverages instead of one 24oz drink. The extra sugar would be legal. Similarly the proposed ban does ban refills, even unlimited refills.
The proposed restrictions would apply to purveyors regulated by the New York City Board of Health, limiting it to restaurants, movie theatres, sports venues, and street vendors. It does not apply therefore to grocery stores, convenience stores (You can still get a Big Gulp at a 7-11 in the Big Apple), newsstands or vending machines. Look for the specials on 2 liters sodas at the local store.
It excludes dairy based beverages, such as milk shakes or your favorite latte at Starbucks, as long as it’s over 51% dairy. A daily dose of large lattes can add to your waistline very quickly.
Nor does it apply to fruit juices, which can contain large levels of sugar.
It is inapplicable to beer or alcohol. Beer, even light beer, is fattening.
It is therefore legal to start the morning out with a latte, have a shake at lunch, and finish the evening with a few brewskis.
Many of the Big Apple’s pretzel vendors also sell Dove Bar ice creams cones, or competing ice cream products. No limit is imposed on these succulent delights.
Recent studies show that consuming diet drinks in lieu of sugared sodas has no effect on weight gains. The reasons aren’t yet fully understood, but the reality is that diet drinks are not a panacea.
Questions arise: First, why a 16oz limit? Why not 12oz, or some other arbitrary figure?
Second, what’s happened to individual liberty and personal choice?
Third, why do we continue to underestimate the ingenuity of teenagers in seeking out the junk foods of their choice as schools impose restrictions on school lunches and vending machines when the empirical evidence shows these restrictions have been as effective as Prohibition or the War on Drugs?
Fourth, why will these new restrictions be any more successful than earlier bans on Happy Meals, fast food restaurants, and booster activities?
Fifth, will New York City anoint several of New York’s finest as food police?
Sixth, doesn’t New York City have “bigger” problems than the size of sodas?
Politics: The New Spectator Sport in Wisconsin
Wisconsin, once the state of cheeseheads and the Pack, the Badgers and Smash Mouth Football, Marquette and basketball, and Milwaukee and occassionally the Brewers.
Wisconsin, now the state of a blood sport much greater in intensity: politics.
Wisconsin, the state which was once above politics, has discovered raw politics with a vengeance.
Tuesday, June 5 is the next date in a two year saga of conservative primacy in Wisconsin. Liberals see the paradigm loss of Wisconsin, the center of the Progressive Movement for 110 years. The Progressive Magazine has been published in Madison, Wisconsin since 1909. The University of Wisconsin has consistently been one of the most liberal campuses in America. The political fabric of the state had been center-left for a century. Democrats have won Wisconsin in every Presidential election since 1988, with President Obama carrying the state by 14% in 2008.
That was then; this is now.
Will Wisconsin, among the bluest of blue states, turn red?
Just as 2008 witnessed a Democratic landslide nationally, the 2010 backlash gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives, most state houses and governorships. The Midwest was a redout for Republicans.
Governor Walker inherited a $3.6 billion budget deficit and rising taxes. He proved you can balance the budget and lower taxes in two years. He did so by essentially striping the public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights.
The public employee unions initially rejected his proposal that the public employees contribute 5.8% of their salaries to their pensions and 12.6% to health insurance.
They had been contributing nothing.
The governor’s response was a union busting measure guised as fiscal reform. The unions belatedly agreed to the deductions, but it was too late. The legislative proposals included not only these payroll deductions, but a ban on collective bargaining for salary increases that exceed inflation. More significantly, the statute was a limited right to work statute. The state would no longer deduct union dues from a member’s paycheck unless the employee annually agreed to the dues deduction. The statute was strategically designed to exclude police and fire.
The unions “went to the mattresses” on the Republican legislation. They engaged in a sit-in at the capitol, Democratic senators fled to Illinois, unsuccessfully mounted a campaign to deny reelection to a sitting conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court judge, again unsuccessfully attempted to recall Republican state senators, and have now striving to recall Governor Walker.
And they are pleading for a return to “civility” in Wisconsin politics.
The reforms have been effective for Wisconsin government, but the effects of the act have been draconian on public employee union membership and fisc.
Immediate benefits were felt in health insurance costs. Most school districts obtained their health insurance through the WEA Trust, owned by the Wisconsin Education Association. Through the prospect of competitive bidding, Appleton, Wisconsin immediately reaped a $3.1 million savings.
The state balanced its budget. Cities and school districts felt immediate budgetary relief.
Teacher layoffs were minimal, while property tax rates dipped.
Membership in AFSCME fell over 50% from 62,818 to 28,745. Membership in the teachers union dropped from 17,000 to 11,000. Union membership will further decrease as existing contracts expire.
Obviously, the revenue stream to the unions will cripple their political power in future elections. No longer will membership dues decide elections. That is the real issue in Wisconsin.
Governor Walker has crafted a roadmap for busting the public employee unions. If it catches on like a prairie fire, the funding basis of the Democratic Party will collapse, both nationally and at the state and local level. No other source of funds, trial lawyers, Hollywood, George Soros, Wall Street, or Indian tribes, match the combined funds of the unions. Often 1/3 of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are members of the teachers unions.
The state has been bitterly split as in a civil war. 25 reporters for the Gannett Newspapers signed petitions to recall the governor, thereby dropping the mask of journalistic independence. 29 circuit judges signed similar petitions, also raising the questions of an impartial judiciary. The University of Wisconsin’s President Charles Van Hise in 1904 promulgated the Wisconsin Idea, under which the state university would serve the greater good of the state. Several doctors at the University of Wisconsin Medical School misconstrued the mission. Eleven doctors and 9 residents signed “sick notes” excusing teachers from employment when they staged the capitol sit-ins against the Governor.
Yet, the national response has been interesting. President Obama, an otherwise peripatetic campaigner, has treated Wisconsin as fly-over country, between fund raising trips to California and campaigning in Ohio. The Democratic National Committee has refused to contribute $500,000 to the recall campaign. Conservatives have poured about $30 million into Governor Walker’s campaign. Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee has barely raised $4 million.
The unions can’t win this battle. Even if recall Governor Walker on Tuesday, they cannot win.
They supported Kathleen Falk, former manager of Dane County (Madison) in the Democratic primary with $4.5 million. She was the only major candidate who pledged to repeal the Walker acts. She lost to Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee, who saw the Milwaukee School District save $19 million under the Walker reforms. He instead turned the campaign into “jobs;” Who can bring jobs to Wisconsin. Voters know the answer to that question, looking at job losses in Milwaukee. Wisconsin residents may be cheeseheads, but they are not knuckleheads.
Governor Walker in the uncontested Republican primary received 680,000 votes, which exceeded the total of the top five Democratic candidates.
The unions cannot win because of the economic tide running against their contracts, health insurance, and pension plans. The status quo is economically unsustainable.
Even California at some point will say : “No mas.”
Polls favor Governor Walker, although it will depend on which side getting the vote out. The unions are employing their usual intensive ground campaign, especially in their big city strongholds. It may not be enough.
If the Governor wins big on Tuesday, then Wisconsin will be in play in November. If President Obama loses Wisconsin, the election will be a Romney landslide.
It’s still the economy, stupid.
Wisconsin, now the state of a blood sport much greater in intensity: politics.
Wisconsin, the state which was once above politics, has discovered raw politics with a vengeance.
Tuesday, June 5 is the next date in a two year saga of conservative primacy in Wisconsin. Liberals see the paradigm loss of Wisconsin, the center of the Progressive Movement for 110 years. The Progressive Magazine has been published in Madison, Wisconsin since 1909. The University of Wisconsin has consistently been one of the most liberal campuses in America. The political fabric of the state had been center-left for a century. Democrats have won Wisconsin in every Presidential election since 1988, with President Obama carrying the state by 14% in 2008.
That was then; this is now.
Will Wisconsin, among the bluest of blue states, turn red?
Just as 2008 witnessed a Democratic landslide nationally, the 2010 backlash gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives, most state houses and governorships. The Midwest was a redout for Republicans.
Governor Walker inherited a $3.6 billion budget deficit and rising taxes. He proved you can balance the budget and lower taxes in two years. He did so by essentially striping the public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights.
The public employee unions initially rejected his proposal that the public employees contribute 5.8% of their salaries to their pensions and 12.6% to health insurance.
They had been contributing nothing.
The governor’s response was a union busting measure guised as fiscal reform. The unions belatedly agreed to the deductions, but it was too late. The legislative proposals included not only these payroll deductions, but a ban on collective bargaining for salary increases that exceed inflation. More significantly, the statute was a limited right to work statute. The state would no longer deduct union dues from a member’s paycheck unless the employee annually agreed to the dues deduction. The statute was strategically designed to exclude police and fire.
The unions “went to the mattresses” on the Republican legislation. They engaged in a sit-in at the capitol, Democratic senators fled to Illinois, unsuccessfully mounted a campaign to deny reelection to a sitting conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court judge, again unsuccessfully attempted to recall Republican state senators, and have now striving to recall Governor Walker.
And they are pleading for a return to “civility” in Wisconsin politics.
The reforms have been effective for Wisconsin government, but the effects of the act have been draconian on public employee union membership and fisc.
Immediate benefits were felt in health insurance costs. Most school districts obtained their health insurance through the WEA Trust, owned by the Wisconsin Education Association. Through the prospect of competitive bidding, Appleton, Wisconsin immediately reaped a $3.1 million savings.
The state balanced its budget. Cities and school districts felt immediate budgetary relief.
Teacher layoffs were minimal, while property tax rates dipped.
Membership in AFSCME fell over 50% from 62,818 to 28,745. Membership in the teachers union dropped from 17,000 to 11,000. Union membership will further decrease as existing contracts expire.
Obviously, the revenue stream to the unions will cripple their political power in future elections. No longer will membership dues decide elections. That is the real issue in Wisconsin.
Governor Walker has crafted a roadmap for busting the public employee unions. If it catches on like a prairie fire, the funding basis of the Democratic Party will collapse, both nationally and at the state and local level. No other source of funds, trial lawyers, Hollywood, George Soros, Wall Street, or Indian tribes, match the combined funds of the unions. Often 1/3 of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are members of the teachers unions.
The state has been bitterly split as in a civil war. 25 reporters for the Gannett Newspapers signed petitions to recall the governor, thereby dropping the mask of journalistic independence. 29 circuit judges signed similar petitions, also raising the questions of an impartial judiciary. The University of Wisconsin’s President Charles Van Hise in 1904 promulgated the Wisconsin Idea, under which the state university would serve the greater good of the state. Several doctors at the University of Wisconsin Medical School misconstrued the mission. Eleven doctors and 9 residents signed “sick notes” excusing teachers from employment when they staged the capitol sit-ins against the Governor.
Yet, the national response has been interesting. President Obama, an otherwise peripatetic campaigner, has treated Wisconsin as fly-over country, between fund raising trips to California and campaigning in Ohio. The Democratic National Committee has refused to contribute $500,000 to the recall campaign. Conservatives have poured about $30 million into Governor Walker’s campaign. Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee has barely raised $4 million.
The unions can’t win this battle. Even if recall Governor Walker on Tuesday, they cannot win.
They supported Kathleen Falk, former manager of Dane County (Madison) in the Democratic primary with $4.5 million. She was the only major candidate who pledged to repeal the Walker acts. She lost to Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee, who saw the Milwaukee School District save $19 million under the Walker reforms. He instead turned the campaign into “jobs;” Who can bring jobs to Wisconsin. Voters know the answer to that question, looking at job losses in Milwaukee. Wisconsin residents may be cheeseheads, but they are not knuckleheads.
Governor Walker in the uncontested Republican primary received 680,000 votes, which exceeded the total of the top five Democratic candidates.
The unions cannot win because of the economic tide running against their contracts, health insurance, and pension plans. The status quo is economically unsustainable.
Even California at some point will say : “No mas.”
Polls favor Governor Walker, although it will depend on which side getting the vote out. The unions are employing their usual intensive ground campaign, especially in their big city strongholds. It may not be enough.
If the Governor wins big on Tuesday, then Wisconsin will be in play in November. If President Obama loses Wisconsin, the election will be a Romney landslide.
It’s still the economy, stupid.
President Obama's Composite Julia
Julia was a great 1977 movie, winning three Oscars and starring Meryl Streep
Julie and Julia was a wonderful 2009 movie, starring Meryl Streep
Julia 2012 is an Obama video production, featuring a composite Julia, and starring President Obama, but not Meryl Streep. President Obama apparently likes composite women.
The composite Julia is featured at various ages of her life 3, 17, 25, 27, 31, 37, 42, 65, 67
Each slide starts out “Under President Obama …”
Julia at age 3 enters Head Start, ignoring the studies questioning the effectiveness of the program.
“At age 17: Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications.” Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program implemented by the President. What about high school counselors, SAT prep courses? Did the President take the SAT for Julia?
She enters college at 18, qualifying for the President’s American Opportunity Tax Credit of $10,000 over 4 years. Tax credits existed prior to his administration and are little or no benefit to the economically disadvantaged.
Julia at 22 in college undergoes surgery, covered by ObamaCare which keeps her on her parents’ coverage till 26. Of course, prior to ObamaCare she would have been on her parents’ policy until 25, so ObamaCare doesn’t matter. We are assuming that her parents still have an independent health insurance policy, presumably through work if they still have a job and if the employer offers health insurance. Most colleges offer independent health insurance today, but their numbers may be shrinking as well because of the extra costs of ObamaCare.
Julia at 23 starts her new job as a web designer, benefitting from the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Of course, discrimination in pay based on gender was already illegal, but let’s not get too picky. Take note that the President picked her job for her. She also seems to have spent 5 years in college, perhaps because courses weren’t available due to budget cuts at public universities.
Julia benefits at 25 by lower interest rates on student loans and capping repayment on income-based income levels. Of course, if she’s in the 50% of recent college grads who are unemployed, she doesn’t have to worry about the cost, interest or repayment rates on her student loans.
At 27 Julia has enjoyed 4 years as a web designer and benefits from the mandatory birth control and preventative care of ObamaCare. She could also get birth control pills for $4 at WalMart.
Julia decides at 31 “Under President Obama” to have a child. Who’s daddy – an unnamed father, an unknown sperm donator, the President?
Julia’s son Zachery starts kindergarten when Julia is 37. Isn’t 6 a little old for kindergarten?
Julia starts her own business at 42 courtesy of a Small Business Administration loan, which probably means she did not qualify for a private loan. She supposedly benefits from the President’s tax cuts for small businesses, but wait till she encounters the bureaucracy and high taxes that confront small business.
Julia enrolls at 65 in Medicare, qualifying for the preventative care and prescription drugs she needs. Medicare is bankrupting states today. I’m staying on my employer’s plan as long as I can.
Julia holds off social security until 67 when her monthly benefits “ help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she’ll run out of savings,” which “allows” Julia to volunteer at a community garden. Didn’t she ever buy a house with a garden and lawn of her own? Is there a compost pile at the community garden? Is there no private property “Under President Obama?”
Obama’s Julia is not a liberated woman. She is dependent on a man, the President, for her success in life. No reference is given to her grandfather, father, brother, husband, or significant other.
Is the Life of Julia also devoid of any sense of personal responsibility on the part of Julia?
By way of contrast with a truly inspirational speaker, we have these soaring, uplifting remarks from President Kennedy’s famous inauguration speech in 1960:
“And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
President Obama’s “Julia” illustrates the emerging, ongoing, characteristics of the President – narcissism, his liking composite women, and the emerging cult of personality.
Politically it represents a fundamental transformation in the American spirit, from one of personal independence and self-reliance to formalizing the culture of dependency on the government. He has even outlined the statist’s ultimate goal, weaning a child from her parents and family to the state.
Julie and Julia was a wonderful 2009 movie, starring Meryl Streep
Julia 2012 is an Obama video production, featuring a composite Julia, and starring President Obama, but not Meryl Streep. President Obama apparently likes composite women.
The composite Julia is featured at various ages of her life 3, 17, 25, 27, 31, 37, 42, 65, 67
Each slide starts out “Under President Obama …”
Julia at age 3 enters Head Start, ignoring the studies questioning the effectiveness of the program.
“At age 17: Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications.” Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program implemented by the President. What about high school counselors, SAT prep courses? Did the President take the SAT for Julia?
She enters college at 18, qualifying for the President’s American Opportunity Tax Credit of $10,000 over 4 years. Tax credits existed prior to his administration and are little or no benefit to the economically disadvantaged.
Julia at 22 in college undergoes surgery, covered by ObamaCare which keeps her on her parents’ coverage till 26. Of course, prior to ObamaCare she would have been on her parents’ policy until 25, so ObamaCare doesn’t matter. We are assuming that her parents still have an independent health insurance policy, presumably through work if they still have a job and if the employer offers health insurance. Most colleges offer independent health insurance today, but their numbers may be shrinking as well because of the extra costs of ObamaCare.
Julia at 23 starts her new job as a web designer, benefitting from the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Of course, discrimination in pay based on gender was already illegal, but let’s not get too picky. Take note that the President picked her job for her. She also seems to have spent 5 years in college, perhaps because courses weren’t available due to budget cuts at public universities.
Julia benefits at 25 by lower interest rates on student loans and capping repayment on income-based income levels. Of course, if she’s in the 50% of recent college grads who are unemployed, she doesn’t have to worry about the cost, interest or repayment rates on her student loans.
At 27 Julia has enjoyed 4 years as a web designer and benefits from the mandatory birth control and preventative care of ObamaCare. She could also get birth control pills for $4 at WalMart.
Julia decides at 31 “Under President Obama” to have a child. Who’s daddy – an unnamed father, an unknown sperm donator, the President?
Julia’s son Zachery starts kindergarten when Julia is 37. Isn’t 6 a little old for kindergarten?
Julia starts her own business at 42 courtesy of a Small Business Administration loan, which probably means she did not qualify for a private loan. She supposedly benefits from the President’s tax cuts for small businesses, but wait till she encounters the bureaucracy and high taxes that confront small business.
Julia enrolls at 65 in Medicare, qualifying for the preventative care and prescription drugs she needs. Medicare is bankrupting states today. I’m staying on my employer’s plan as long as I can.
Julia holds off social security until 67 when her monthly benefits “ help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she’ll run out of savings,” which “allows” Julia to volunteer at a community garden. Didn’t she ever buy a house with a garden and lawn of her own? Is there a compost pile at the community garden? Is there no private property “Under President Obama?”
Obama’s Julia is not a liberated woman. She is dependent on a man, the President, for her success in life. No reference is given to her grandfather, father, brother, husband, or significant other.
Is the Life of Julia also devoid of any sense of personal responsibility on the part of Julia?
By way of contrast with a truly inspirational speaker, we have these soaring, uplifting remarks from President Kennedy’s famous inauguration speech in 1960:
“And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
President Obama’s “Julia” illustrates the emerging, ongoing, characteristics of the President – narcissism, his liking composite women, and the emerging cult of personality.
Politically it represents a fundamental transformation in the American spirit, from one of personal independence and self-reliance to formalizing the culture of dependency on the government. He has even outlined the statist’s ultimate goal, weaning a child from her parents and family to the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)