California leaders including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have reportedly agreed a new budget deal, but as the state attracts jeers for its lateness in taking concrete steps to pass a budget, some are booing its leaders for their willingness to sign off on tax hikes when it is being reported that California is owed about $1.4 billion in tax revenue already collected by businesses from consumers, but never remitted to the state.

The LA Times reports:

California is owed nearly $1.4 billion by auto dealers, restaurants and other businesses that collected sales taxes from buyers but didn’t pass the money along to the state — a situation that is aggravating California’s budget crisis.

The tab is up about 25% from a year ago and has almost doubled since 2007, state records show.

That money could make a significant dent in the state’s $19-billion budget gap. Watchdog groups say the state’s failure to collect it is particularly galling because much of the tax money has already been paid by consumers — it just hasn’t been turned over by merchants to the state Board of Equalization.

“All of us want people to pay the tax they legally owe before lawmakers go looking to raise taxes,” said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a Sacramento nonprofit that advocates for lower-income Californians.

Indeed, reports indicate that Republicans in the Golden State have reluctantly signed off on one tax increase as a possible pathway to getting more tax cuts included in any budget.  According to the Sacramento Bee, as of last week, GOP leadership had agreed to a delay in implementation of a net operating loss (“NOL”) deduction originally intended to begin this year until 2012– a move that would supposedly bring in about $1.4 billion.

(more…)

ACORN may be renamed and rebranded but a new government report details how the organization is up to its same old corrupt practices.

According to Fox News:

An official report released [last] week says an ACORN offshoot group cannot properly account for how it has spent millions of federal dollars and recommends that the group repay the government and be put on standby mode until it cleans up its act.

The report from the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development reviewed how ACORN Housing Corporation — now called Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA) — has spent federal grant money over the past two decades. The report described the group’s book-keeping as “problematic and unsupported,” and claimed that more than $65,000 in “ineligible” salary expenses were charged to a federal grant last year, including costs for six employees after they were terminated.

(You can read the inspector general’s report in its entirety here.)

Overall, 80% of taxpayer funds distributed to ACORN in 2008 and 2009 were used to pay salaries — even for employees who no longer worked for the organization! That’s right, in a response letter to the inspector general’s office, a representative of the new ACORN spin-off said the organization “does not dispute” the fact that it “erroneously charged” the federal government (read: taxpayers) for employees who had been terminated.

(more…)

Few fiscal-policy terms these days seem as elastic as the word “subsidy.” In a strict sense, it means a direct payment from government (i.e., taxpayers) to influence economic behavior.

So it was with great interest that I read Robert H. Schell’s thoughtful post that recently called to “End the Subsidy!” for all forms of U.S. energy. Schell perceptively and forcefully argued that,

I hate all subsidies.  In every case they are welfare-reducing for the whole population in the current time period; and I am unconvinced – against all claims – that they are welfare-increasing as a present value of future benefits.

Despite Schell’s making an exception for subsidizing kittens (only a maniac would argue for not subsidizing puppies instead, BTW), his line of reasoning – returning federal fiscal policy to a more economically rational and neutral plane – has plenty of merit. If only the post didn’t cite a flawed report from National Public Radio that has more to do with politics than economics.

According to a September 22 report on NPR’s Marketplace, “[T]oday, federal fossil fuel subsidies in all run about $10 billion a year, more than double those for renewable energy.” This contention seems to assume that renewable energy remains at a federal policy disadvantage – one that’s loaded with half-truths.

(more…)

From Legal News Line:

A new study focusing on what one organization feels is an abuse of power was released Wednesday, naming the 10 worst state attorneys general in recent history.

Hans Bader, Counsel for Special Projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote the report, which names Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal as the worst.

“The nation’s worst state attorney general is Richard Blumenthal, a tireless crusader for growing the power of his own office and spreading largesse to his cronies,” Bader wrote.

Bader focused largely on Blumenthal’s role in litigation against tobacco companies, starting with the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

“Wealthy trial lawyers across the nation received $14 billion nationally in attorneys’ fees under a $246 billion-plus settlement paid for primarily by smokers — the alleged victims of the very fraud that begat the settlement,” Bader said.

(more…)

Our fiscal policy goal should be smaller government. Regardless of how it is financed, government spending diverts resources from the productive sector of the economy, and there is widespread evidence that nations with larger public sectors suffer from weaker economic performance.

The politicians in Washington don’t want to focus on the size of government. They would much rather focus on deficits. This allows them on certain days to say we need more spending because deficits somehow are supposed to be good for the economy (this video explains why Keynesianism is nonsense). And it allows them on other days to say we need higher taxes because deficits are bad for the economy.

Many Americans understand that something is wrong with fiscal policy, and many of those people view deficits as a symbol of fiscal excess in Washington. They need to be careful, though, that politicians don’t take advantage of that concern and lure them into supporting bad policy. Contrary to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, we don’t need higher taxes. Here’s a video that explains why spending restraint is the answer.

The main message is that limiting the growth of government is the right way to get rid of red ink. In other words, there is no conflict between advocates of limited government and supporters of fiscal balance.

(more…)

The implementation of the healthcare reform bill that was passed in March has now begun. Unfortunately, it is becoming obvious that the promises made such as: a) you can keep your physician and medical plan if you like them; b) your healthcare costs will go down; c) there will be no healthcare rationing; and d) everyone will be covered simply were not true.

We were fed a steady diet of fear, distraction and falsehoods to sell healthcare reform.

• We were told that unless something was done healthcare costs would bankrupt the country

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report admitting that the actual cost of the healthcare system would be far higher than was initially estimated  - a cost of more than 1 trillion dollars

• We were told that healthcare premiums would decrease for families

The CBO report estimates that the cost of healthcare premiums would go up by $2100 for the average family next year

• We were told that if we liked our health insurance and doctor we could keep them

Thousands of Medicare recipients from Massachusetts to Maine will lose supplemental insurance through Medicare advantage thereby increasing there healthcare costs exponentially.

• There will be no healthcare rationing

The choice of Donald Berwick speaks for itself. He is a champion of the British model of socialized one size fits all medicine. It is a broken system that is based on rationing of care that is collapsing under its own weight.

There have also been examples of nascent rationing here in the US. e.g, in Colorado the cancer drug Avastin is not covered by Medicare although it is covered in other states. In addition, the effectiveness of screening tools such as mammograms are being questioned. It is likely that these studies will eventually be used to argue that mammograms are not effective and therefore will not be covered by insurance.

(more…)

Today, in 1970, PBS, the Public Broadcast System, was founded. It would provide children’s and educational programming that wasn’t available on the three commercial channels. Today, we have hundreds of commercial channels, many of which are devoted exclusively to children’s and educational programming. Yet, we still have a taxpayer-funded PBS. Go figure.

How do you keep the Van Joneses and other radicals from going off the deep end and spouting Marxist propaganda for national TV cameras?

By using the World’s Largest Teleprompter.

Every speaker used this from the podium, positioned below the lecturn.  There were unconfirmed reports that it had been borrowed from the White House.

(more…)

An American businessman who has been the target of a relentless attack by SEIU union thugs wrote today about the lessons we should all take from Breitbart’s recent run-in:

On Saturday, September 18th, Andrew Breitbart faced a situation similar to that endured by EMS for over three years during the SEIU’s corporate campaign to force unionization on its employees (See Andrew Breitbart Forces President Obama’s Protesters to Fold Up Shop).

He and Glenn Beck faced an unruly crowd chanting “Hey, Ho, Breitbart and Beck Must Go,” a scene that my employees and I faced constantly during the ordeal. The chant then was “Dave Bego and EMS must go!” From an originality perspective, the SEIU has not progressed much in the five years since the campaign against EMS!

Bego concludes:

(more…)

In politics, there is an old adage that if they are not shooting at you, you are irrelevant.  If so, you may well be able to judge the relevancy of someone by the amount of fire they are drawing.  A year ago, the “Tea Party” was merely “astro-turf” in the eyes of those on the Left.  Today, they are more than extreme in the eyes of the Main Stream Media, the Democrats leadership and Left in general.   But is that really the case?

Before we answer the question, keep in the mind the intensity of the attacks facing the Tea Party participants today.  They are referred to as “earth-shatteringly stupid,”(Rolling Stone Oct. 14 edition)  “racist,” “hard-right,” and, of course, “extreme” – the latter of which will produce over 2.7 million Google hits.  It also was the recent subject of Obama’s characterization of “the Republican Party as all but taken over by Tea Party extremists.”

So how extreme are the Tea Party participants.  Let’s take a look.

Among the Tea Party Groups, one of the most prominent is the Tea Party Express.  I have attended a few of their rallies and found that they have championed the following slogans at one time or another on the side of their tour bus:

• Stop Out of Control Spending!
• No Government Run Healthcare!
• Reduce the Size & Intrusiveness of Government!
• End the Bailouts!
• Stop Raising our Taxes!

Do those slogans represent extreme views?  Let’s see what a few people have to say about them.

(more…)

Back in June, we reported that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) was circulating a letter to his fellow Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal “Right-to-Work” laws in 22 states.  Now, with less than a month before the mid-term elections and five weeks before a lame-duck session in Congress, Sherman has introduced legislation to eliminate state Right to Work laws all across America.

Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union.  These states are known as Right-to-Work states.

On the other hand, in the 28 Non-Right-to-Work states (also called forced-dues states), it is legal for a union to negotiate a “union (income) security clause” that requires all workers covered by the union to pay the union does or ‘agency fees’ as a condition of employment.  If the workers refuse to pay the union, under a “union (income) security clause,” the union can have them fired from their jobs.

As background, in 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act with the Taft-Hartley Amendments which, among other things, gave states the right to establish “Right-to-Work” laws.  Until the Taft-Hartley Amendments, from 1935 to 1947, private-sector workers in all 50 could be required to pay dues to a union or, if not, be fired from their jobs. The ability of states to have Right-to-Work laws is contained in a single paragraph within the National Labor Relations Act (Section 14 [b]), which states:

(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.

As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state.

(more…)

Excerpted from Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street. Published by Sentinel. Copyright Charles Gasparino, 2010.

But despite his trials, [Lloyd] Blankfein had taken time out of his grueling schedule to help a firm that wasn’t a Goldman client, not even a prospective one. The firm was ShoreBank Corporation, a small community bank located in Chicago that lent money to inner-city businesses and was exploring the possibility of financing nascent and as-yet-unprofitable “green” businesses through so-called conservation loans and environmental banking, according to the bank’s Web site.

The bank’s self-described mission was to “change the world.” And yet despite its seemingly good intentions, the bank’s urban commercial borrowers were suffering greatly from the lower property values and high unemployment that stemmed from post–financial crisis recession. Without Blankfein’s help (and the help of other
major Wall Street firms) ShoreBank would follow the fate of dozens of other banks during the great recession and face almost certain collapse and government liquidation.

To be sure, helping out a struggling bank that wasn’t even a client was a most un-Goldman-like thing to do. Goldman dealt with only the biggest companies in corporate America or with superwealthy individuals (typically, those with $10 million or more to invest with the firm). More thanthat, this was a firm that had a reputation for screwing just about any company, clients included, when business was on the line. Goldman, of course, would deny that assertion. Even so, in the normal course of business, a bank like ShoreBank, with its modest funds and do-gooder reputation, wouldn’t even appear on Goldman’s radar as a potential customer.

Yet for some seemingly inexplicable reason, Lloyd Blankfein—who had a net worth close to $500 million and until recently had never heard of ShoreBank—started imploring his friends at other firms, like Morgan Stanley, GE Capital, and others, to help this little bank. Not that Blankfein suggested there was money to be made here. Quite the contrary; it was simply the right thing to do.

To any casual observer, this puzzling scenario raises the question: Why would Blankfein possibly want to save ShoreBank?

(more…)

Last week the California Governor’s race was taken over by Gloria Allred, attorney, Democratic Party advocate, and protector of scandalous  ”other woman.” According to Allred (who was a delegate to the Democratic Convention in 2008), Nicky Diaz-Santillan worked “toiled”  Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman for nine years, and was fired in June 2009.

Ms. Allred, savior of the downtrodden “d-listers,” claims that Diaz was fired “for what appeared to be political reasons involving Ms. Whitman’s decision to run for governor.”  Ms Whitman, on the other hand claims,  says the former nanny falsely filled out immigration forms when she first applied for employment as a housekeeper and was not, in fact, a legal resident of the United States. The Republican candidate Meg Whitman replied that the reason for the termination was she discovered Ms. Diaz had lied about her resident status.

If you saw the front page of the latest edition of QUAD CITIES LABOR NEWS, you probably noticed an article under the headline, WHAT’S WITH ALL THE BILLBOARDS? Unfortunately, the article beneath the headline fails to offer a truthful answer to the question and, in fact, stinks of desperation.

The article begins with the following inaccurate description of the nonprofit group behind the placement of election-focused billboards in the Quad Cities area:

Perhaps you’ve seen them. They disparage Phil Hare while saying little about who is paying for them. The group behind the billboards on 11th Ave. in Rock Island and River Drive in Moline is a front group for Bobby Schilling called Veterans4Schilling.

In the remaining paragraphs of the labor union rag, truth seems to be an afterthought.

In the second paragraph, for example, it’s claimed that “The Federal Election Commission has already filed a complain against Veterans4Schilling for unethical practices” and it’s alleged that the group changed its name to Veterans4Constitution after the complaint was filed.

First, everyone knows the Federal Election Commission did not file any complaints. It was an operative of Hare — one James L. Moody — who filed the Aug. 27 complaint with the FEC. Second, one needs only read the complaint to see that Moody directed his “beef” at Veterans 4 Constitution, not Veterans 4 Schilling.

As for the claim that appears in the third paragraph (i.e., that none of the Republican candidates endorsed by the veterans group were veterans), I’d love to find out why Robert Enriquez, the GOP candidate for Illinois Secretary of State, doesn’t qualify as a veteran in the eyes of the labor folks. After all, he served as a Marine Corps officer and completed two overseas tours.

(more…)

Fresh from lobbying for her friends at ShoreBank, Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) is at the center of another Chicago bank scandal–this time involving the remnants of a bank with connections to convicted former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, convicted fraudster Tony Rezko, and Barack Obama.

Source: http://achicagosojourn.blogspot.com

Under pressure from a contributor named Balvinder Singh (who gave her $500 in 2004, $2000 in 2006, and who knows what in 2010), Schakowsky twisted arms at the United Central Bank to back away from foreclosing on Singh and on several other business owners in Chicago’s West Rogers Park neighborhood.

United Central Bank took over the failed Mutual Bank of Harvey in 2009. According to Crain’s Chicago Business, Mutual funded Barack Obama’s “boneheaded” land deal with Rezko. Mutual’s former CEO also once raised major cash for Blagojevich.

The ghost of Mutual has returned to haunt Chicago politics, this time in a pay-to-play scheme that has unfolded barely a month before Election Day, with Schakowsky, the embattled incumbent, desperate and dishing out favors to survive.

(more…)

Progressives and radicals decended on Washington, DC Saturday demanding more government spending as the way to fix societal ills.  Groups including the AFL-CIO, SEIU, NAACP, Democratic Socialists of America, Organizing for America, Communist Party USA, American Federation of Teachers, CodePink and National Education Association linked arms in a call for voters to keep Democrats in power.

Here’s a sampling of the sights and sounds of the day.

After milling in the crowd all day, I would estimate 80%-90% of attendees wore union-affiliated t-shirts. Some others wore ‘I Need a Job’ shirts. We talked to people who were bussed and actually flow in – the Tides Foundation spent a lot of money.

This blogger overheard an organizer shout into a cell phone that SEIU was supposed to send 695 buses but apparently didn’t.  While I did not attend the Beck rally and am not good at judging crowd size, today’s crowd was clearly smaller than Beck’s.  I walked about a third of the way towards the Washington Monument and the crowd grew thin.

(more…)

Sometimes a picture is worth more than 1,000 words. From Milton Wolf.com: