Wednesday, March 03, 2010

California May Get What It's Asking For


Oh, boy, guess who's back? It's Jerry Brown, trying for a second run at being the Governor of California. Ain't it wonderful? And at 71 years of age, too!

Hey, Jerry, the employment rate in California is... 12%? Why don't you make room for somebody UNDER retirement age? Be generous for once.

Right now, our the people of California pay over 4 BILLION dollars a year total for the average government employees' salary and benefits packages. Labor Unions have pressured these increases over the years until California has the highest paid government employees in the U.S. Jerry Brown is being heavily funded by Labor Unions who don't want to see bloated salaries and platinum benefits packages for their members affected.

Unions are supposed to be "spokesmen for the average worker", but they don't give a tinker's damn about the average workers, who just had their taxes raised 10% to pay for this kind of crap. Jerry Brown will be their sockpuppet.

The average cost to house a prisoner in California is now $49,000.00 a year. A big piece of that is the 33% salary increase Governor Gray Davis gave to prison employees in exchange for campaign donations from their Labor Unions. Davis also shut down 5 privately run prisons that threatened the unions' monopoly. Jerry Brown will be a sockpuppet for these unions.

Education in California is costing California taxpayers 40% of the State General Fund, and in some places spending per pupil is between $15000.00 and $20000.00 per year. Yet California schools are among the worst 10% in the U.S. Teachers' Unions fight tooth-and-nail to keep schools from being run by private entities or from becoming charter schools because they don't want to lose the union dues. California students are losing out because of the protection of mediocrity that Teachers' Unions are guilty of. Jerry Brown will be their sockpuppet.

The farmers of California Central Valley have suffered huge revenue losses because environmentalists have cut off a major part of their water supply, thanks to environmentalist groups. The issue is an "engangered species" of fish called the Delta Smelt. Yet stopping the pumps in the Sacramento River Delta that supplied the Central Valley hasn't helped improve the fish populations. Nonetheless, the losses of billions of dollars and 60,000 jobs have left the Central Valley one of the most economically depressed areas of California, with communities reporting 80% unemployment and businesses shutting down due to loss of revenue. While Brown may claim to lead an effort to build a "peripheral canal" that will provide water from the Sacramento Delta to Central and Southern California, he will NOT issue an executive order to turn on the pumps, because Jerry Brown is an environmentalist sockpuppet.

Jerry Brown as Attorney General is going after Medical Insurance Providers like Blue Cross because they are increasing the cost of their premiums. Brown doesn't care that DOCTORS and HOSPITALS are increasing the fees they charge for services, possibly to make up for the losses they suffer due to Medi-cal, Medicare, and other governmrnt programs, which are the largest sources for underpayment on medical services. I guess it's okay for GOVERNMENT employees to make big salaries and retire on 90% of their last salaries until they die. But if a DOCTOR, who owns a quarter million dollars worth of debt as soon as he graduates from medical school, and also pays HUGE malpractice insurance premiums, tries to make more than a modest living, he's a greedy pig who only cares about his wallet. Jerry brown will do nothing but drive insurance providers out of California and push everybody towards a Universal Healthcare System in California, because he's a Left-Wing Socialist sockpuppet.

Jerry Brown wants more "green energy" in California. He wants it so bad, that he stopped the nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo from bringing 2 of its 4 reactors online. The SLO power plant has been running reliably and providing CLEAN, EMISSION-FREE power for over 25 years. Brown wants us on solar panels and windmills. The problem here is, wind and solar have only 1/4 of the efficiency of nuclear power when the weather is good. Also, taxpayers subsidize "green energy" at 15 times what they subsidize nuclear power. Ironically, a nuclear power plant can pay for itself in 5 years. Wind and solar pay for themselves in 10 to 20 years if the systems hold up long enough. Jerry Brown doesn't care. He'll be doing all he can to get rid of fossil fuels in California, and enslaving the taxpayer to power generation systems that can't pay for themselves without tying up lots of EVERYBODY's money. That's because Jerry Brown is a Green Energy Sockpuppet.

California's economy is in the crapper, and little is being done to improve the business climate here. Do we need another Liberal Democrat 3-time Loser Sockpuppet giving us more of the same?

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Go Get 'Em, Jim!

Jim Bunning, the Senator from Kentucky, is getting the typical knee-jerk reactionary heat from the Angry Left today, who are accusing him of NOT wanting to extend unemployment benefits via Senate Resolution, but the problem is:

It's all a bald-faced lie.

Bunning just wants to decide how the benefits will be PAID: if he has his preference, it will be from unspent "Stimulus" funds, instead of being an open-ended deal that will allow Congress to INCREASE the already exploding deficit.

That's it. But since Jim won't "play nice" the "just shut up and sign" Democrat way, the Libs are running to their favorite media outlets and blogs, and spewing bile. Gee, what else is new?

As usual, the Liberal Democrats just don't get it. On top of that, they're accusing Bunning of filibustering, even though he hasn't started a filibuster.

Here's what else the Dems won't tell you, straight from Michelle Malkin's blog:

“Temporary” Extended Unemployment Benefits?

History Tells a Different Story

The House on January 29, 2008 passed a bipartisan economic stimulus bill that did NOT include provisions to extend unemployment benefits. However, the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) has decided to add a “temporary” extension of unemployment benefits to its version of this legislation.

But does “temporary” really mean this program will operate only “through the end of 2008,” as the legislation’s proponents suggest? Looking back at the history books reveals a different story – of past “temporary” unemployment benefit programs that were repeatedly extended, operating for years and costing tens of billions of dollars more than originally expected.

Unemployment benefit program 1991-1994
Original proposed program length: 8 months
Original estimated cost $7 billion
Actual length: 29 months
Actual cost: $39 billion
Number of extensions: 5
Unemployment rate at start of program: 7 percent
U rate at end: 6.4 percent

Unemployment benefit program 2002-2004
Original proposed program length: 10 months
Original estimated cost $9 billion
Actual length: 29 months
Actual cost: $26 billion
Number of extensions: 2
Unemployment rate at start of program: 5.7 percent
U rate at end: 5.8 percent

Unemployment benefit program 2008
Original proposed program length: 11 months
Original estimated cost $10 billion
Actual length: ? months
Actual cost: ? billion
Number of extensions: ?
Unemployment rate at start of program: 5 percent
U rate at end: ?

1. SFC documents suggest the “temporary” extended unemployment benefits program would operate only through CY 2008 and cost $10 billion. But these sorts of programs never work out that way.

a. CRS reports that no “temporary” extended benefits program created since 1970 has expired without being extended.

b. Programs created in the 1980s and 1990s were extended 6 and 5 times, respectively.

c. The prospects a temporary program created today will expire at the end of 2008 as the SFC proposes – with the window of eligibility shutting two days after Christmas – is both dubious and would be without precedent in the last generation.

2. Even if it operated only as long as the “average” program created since 1980, a “temporary” program created now will be paying extended benefits in mid 2010.

a. The average duration of extended benefits programs created since 1980 is 30 months.

b. If a program started in February 2008 and paid benefits for 30 months, the final payments would be made in July 2010.

c. The total cost of such a program would likely be $30 billion or more.

3. If prior extended benefits programs began when the national unemployment rate was as low as 5.0%, these “temporary” programs would have operated for decades.

a. The U.S. unemployment rate was 5.0% or higher in every month between January 1974 and April 1997 – more than 23 years in a row.

b. Today’s 5.0% rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

c. During the Clinton Administration (1993-2000), the average unemployment rate was 5.2%.

d. According to a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office, today’s 5.0% unemployment rate is the same as the “natural rate” CBO will use “both currently and for the 10-year projection period through 2017.” Put another way, according to CBO today’s unemployment rate is “normal” not “high.”

e. Creating an extended benefits program now will create a precedent to repeat this action every time the unemployment rate reaches this historically modest level. That will cost billions of dollars and encourage more and longer unemployment.


That's right, kids, Bunning is trying to put a stop to this endless cycle of unemployment benefits, which costs the taxpayers megatons of money and destroys American productivity.

Liberal Democrats, in the meantime, are just putting another band-aid on a bullet hole and bawling like babies because they're not interested in the Big Picture.

Besides, the Dems are just spending more of everybody else's money.

Isn't that what they do best?

I think it's time to put a stop to the Dems' favorite hobby, and get behind Jim Bunning. For once, somebody in Congress is having a moment of clarity.

Monday, March 01, 2010

What MSNBC really stands for

MSNBC, the lowest rated cable news network, is well known for its Left-leaning content and such 'fair and balanced' commentators as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, the latter a former OK sportscaster turned mediocre political pundit.

MSNBC has been lowest in the ratings among news networks for some time, making lots of people wonder why NBC keeps this channel going, since it's obvious NBC is losing lots of money to keep MSNBC afloat.

Perhaps NBC needs to change the name of the network, since I recently saw this definition for the MSNBC acronym:

Must Show Nothing But Crap.

I'm still laughing over that one.