Big Labor has focused buckets of money and manpower on defeating WI Supreme Court Justice David Prosser. They certainly have the advantage. Stay tuned for updates throughout the night. Election results here.

Update: With almost half the vote in, Prosser is up by almost 30,000 votes. Did Big Labor miss?

(more…)

Co-authored with Bill Zettler

In the March 28, 2011 issue of the Weekly Standard, Eli Lehrer, Vice-president of the Heartland Institute, a premier think-tank based in Illinois, wrote an article entitled “Pensions Aren’t the Problem.” Lehrer puts forth the argument that defined-benefit state pensions, not only were not in trouble, but were a good way for states to recruit talent at little expense.

While Heartland does some fine work, in this case, we have to disagree with their analysis.  All too often of late the positions of NASRA (National Association of State Retirement Administrators), an organization of self-interest and self-righteousness not unlike their sister organization the NEA (National Education Association), have not received the critical examination they are due. After all, if all state employees were on Social Security and 401K programs there would be no need for state retirement administrators and their staff of thousands.

Let’s go through Mr. Lehrer’s major claims one by one:

CLAIM: “…pension benefits represent a reasonably small share of overall state spending (3.4 percent in Illinois).”

FACT: The way you come up with what appears to be a minuscule percentage of state spending is as follows: (more…)

From Fox Nation:

Fired NPR CEO Vivian Schiller spoke Tuesday at the Paley Center for Media in New York and lashed out at the videographers who exposed the bigotry in her organization, calling the undercover sting an “abomination.” She admitted the rest of the establishment is “terrified” of being the next NPR, Planned Parenthood or ACORN…and speculated that the goal of these stings is to instill fear. “It’s terrifying,” Schiller said, that’s their “objective.”

Terrified? Hmmm. Now you know what it’s like to be in the Tea Party and listening to NPR, Ms. Schiller. Or worse, to be Israel.

(more…)

This was found by an anonymous source on the corner of Lincoln and Olympic in Santa Monica. If anyone finds any more of these, please let us know.

And now, for the subsequent, “heavily edited” version:

If they want to take this battle to the streets, we will gladly meet them there.

Eric Boehlert from Media Matters  somehow manages to combine factually inaccuracy with a double fact twist in his latest attack on black farmers. Boehlert’s piece is a riff from the article I wrote this morning about the lack of a conservative equivalent of Media Matters or MoveOn.

My piece wasn’t a complaint about the general lack of coverage on Pigford but Boehlert chooses to twist it that way – so let’s address that accusation. Boehlert says….

I’m hard-pressed to think of another instance in which a media entity like Breitbart’s has invested so much time and energy promoting a single story (his sites have posted more than 100 Pigford-related items in the last year), yet only to see the story receive virtually no pick-up. Anywhere.

No pickup… Not Hot Air. Not Red State. Not Atlas Shrugs. Not Moonbattery. Not a 4000 word piece in National Review. Not Stossel’s segment on Fox News. Not a Fox News segment. (Last one came before Breitbart was on the story.)

So that’s the factual issue. It has gotten pickup, due to our efforts. Has Pigford gotten as much as I’d like? No and I’ve written about that – although the coverage DID pick up after I asked if the right-wing blogosphere was afraid of Pigford. Boehlert tries to make hay from the fact that O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity or Van Sustern have not run with it yet but as we pointed out countless times this is not a soundbite story. It’s not ready made-for-TV. I believe the documentary will have some impact on this. I should also point out that the stories been covered a number of times on radio, and that’s a better format for it.

It’s also important for the Pigford coverage in context. This is a story that is over a decade old.

(more…)

In recent posts, I discussed how Governor Palin’s key legislative victory, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) , has been a transparent, constitutionally-based, pro-growth success. In 2007, Governor Palin signed into law ACES, an oil tax structure that includes incentives for development and investment in capital improvements and ensured that Alaska’s resources would be developed for the maximum benefit for the people of Alaska as per their state constitution. The Alaska constitution states that the state’s natural resources belong to the people of Alaska.

In essence, revenue derived from oil development belongs in part to the people of Alaska who, as owners of the resources, are due their share of the profits as “shareholders”. Beyond this, ACES also replaced Governor Murkowski’s Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) which was tainted by crony capitalism and corruption and lead to the arrest and conviction of state legislators and Governor Murkowski’s chief-of-staff due to the ties between PPT negotiations and VECO Corp, a oil and gas pipeline company.

ACES has been a success for both the people of Alaska and the oil companies. In a recent Facebook post, Governor Palin highlighted how the revenues of ACES have benefited the people of the Alaska and have made the state financially sound, as it has helped provide a $12 billion state surplus, put billions is savings, pay down underfunded state pension plans, and forward fund education. ACES has proven to be a success for oil companies as well. ACES has contributed to oil job increases, high profits for industry, a record high numbers of oil companies drilling in Alaska, and increased capital development by oil companies spurred by $3 billion of tax incentives. Alaska now has the second best business tax climate in the country, moving up two spots since the passage of ACES.

In the previously referenced Facebook post, Governor Palin brushes off current criticisms of ACES and refers to desires by some to make changes to ACES as “political posturing”. A bill that would alter the ACES tax structure (HB 110) was passed by the House last week. However, this bill does not even remove the progressivity of ACES–the main criticism from detractors. It solely caps the progressivity. In fact, it changes the calculation period for the tax, and it does not account for volatility of oil prices. It is estimated that such a plan could cost the state $100 to $200 million a year. With a constitutionally sound oil taxation structure that has proven to benefit both the Alaskan people and the oil companies, why might Alaskan legislators and Governor Parnell seek to do away with ACES?Are oil companies and crony capitalist Alaskan politicians using the current political climate (and the anti-oil agenda by the current President) as a springboard for altering the oil structure?

A chorus of voices has risen in support of making changes to ACES, but where are these voices coming from? Are these merely echoes of the corruption of the past? Former Republican Alaskan House member, Ray Metcalfe, indicates that this is likely the case.

(more…)

As readers of Big Government know, an impasse over a few billion dollars in proposed spending cuts threatens to shutdown the federal government. (And, by a few billion dollars I mean, rounding error.) As regular readers should also know, I’ve come to embrace a shutdown, rather than fear it.

As this recent Congressional Research Service report explains, if the government were to shutdown, an OMB Directive issued in the 1980s (along with a handful of legal opinions) guide what parts of government continue to function and what parts must close down.  Short story, all of the important functions of government, i.e national security, the military, air traffic control, border security, Social Security payments, etc., will continue to function. The parts that have to shut down…well, lets just say they are candidates for permanent cuts. I mean, if the country functions for several weeks without a few hundred thousand ‘non-essential’ employees, couldn’t we probably function without them forever? I’m not saying every one of these jobs should necessarily be eliminated…but it isn’t a good place to start?

Sensing the potential PR nightmare from this, it seems the Obama Administration may have decided to raise the stakes on a shutdown. According to draft guidance from the Pentagon, the Obama Administration will require military personnel to report to work…but, will hold their paychecks until the impasse is resolved. As Government Executive explained in a March 15th article:

Military personnel and exempt Defense Department civilian employees are required to continue working without pay during a government shutdown, according to guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

In a memo prepared earlier this month, Defense officials noted that service members and some civilian workers, including those involved in national security and the protection of life and property, still must report for duty but will not be paid until Congress appropriates funds to reimburse them for that period of service. All other employees will be furloughed, the memo stated.

Military personnel are not subject to furlough.

This is new.

(more…)

Yesterday, we at the Media Research Center went to the MoveOn.org “We Are One” union rally in Washington, D.C. held outside of the Treasury building to ask the people why they were there protesting.

All of the groups taking part of the rally included: the AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, CommonCause, Communication Workers of America, Greenpeace, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MoveOn, NAACP, National Education Association, SEIU, United Food and Commercial Workers, and USAction.

Given it was blatantly obvious beforehand they were rallying against the Koch brothers despite marketing it as standing up for MLK’s dream, I figured I’d ask them what that exactly was all about. Many people literally could not answer, some refused to answer, and some essentially repeated talking points liberal websites churn out- which shall remain nameless. Including Medea Benjamin of Code Pink.

(more…)

Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could have grown even faster.

What really matters is how much money government is spending this year compared to how much money will be spent in subsequent years. Using this common-sense benchmark, let’s look at two competing proposals.

According to the new numbers released today, Congressman Ryan’s budget plan will result in government growing, on average, by almost 2.8 percent annually over the next 10 years.

President Obama’s budget plan, by contrast, would increase the burden of government spending by an average of nearly 4.7 percent each year.

This chart compares the two budget plans. Because Chairman Ryan does not let spending grow as rapidly, cumulative spending over that period will be $6.2 billion less than it would be based on the President’s plan. That’s an impressive amount of money that taxpayers will save if Ryan is successful, but it’s not a spending cut.

Not surprisingly, the big spenders in Washington are claiming that the “spending cuts” in Representative Ryan’s budget are “harsh” and “extreme.” But Ryan’s proposal would allow the budget to grow faster than inflation, which is projected to average less than 2.1 percent annually over the 10-year period.

Good fiscal policy is very simple. Restrain the size and scope of government so that outlays grow slower than the private sector. If that happens, the burden of federal spending will shrink as a share of economic output.

That’s exactly what happens with Ryan’s plan.

(more…)

President Obama officially kicked off his 2012 reelection campaign today. Noticeably absent from his new campaign is the phrase, “Hope and Change,” the hallmark catch phrase of his 2008 successful presidential bid.

Interestingly, the president appears only briefly in his opening video, as featured supporters make no mention of any accomplishments of his current term- an omission that perhaps speaks more loudly than any video the GOP could create. Further, the video seems bent on continuing the familiar theme of drumming up sympathy for the president- “He’s got a job now so we have to help him”- and idolatry for no apparent reason.

On the other hand, will a low-key start to his campaign, in contrast to the last one, be effective as a means to portray him as a more mature person who is busy with his job and not concerned about “thrills” up anyone’s leg?

(more…)

Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals, but gun control advocates, such as Media Matters, don’t want to acknowledge that there are costs to disarming law-abiding citizens. Lately Media Matters has particularly been incensed that anyone would point out that the vast majority of denials from Brady Act background checks involve so-called “false positives” — law-abiding citizens incorrectly being identified as banned individuals.

Media Matters claims that all those stopped by the background checks from buying guns are prohibited individuals, that no mistakes are made by the government. And Media Matters is willing to engage in any amount of name calling and fraudulent photos to attack those who question their claims.

There are several things to understand about how the Brady Law background check process works. At gun stores or other registered dealers, would-be buyers have to fill out a form asking whether there are any criminal convictions or types of mental illness that would prevent them from legally purchasing the weapon. Falsely answering these questions amounts to perjury. If someone answers the question by saying that they have a background that prohibits them from buying, a gun dealers stop right there and do not even process those forms. And if someone is believed to have knowingly provided false information on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) form and prosecutors believe that they can prove that knowingly false information was provided, the would-be buyer faces prosecution.

Yet, the NICS system accidentally flags many law-abiding people, stopping those who simply have the same name as a prohibited individual from buying a gun.

(more…)

I believe there is a difference between rank-and-file teachers and the leadership of radical teachers’ unions.  The trouble is, the rank-and-file sits idly by as the radicals embarrass them, time and time again.  Perhaps we’ve reached the point where the rank-and-file can rightfully be accused of being complicit of such behavior.

Why aren’t teachers angrily denouncing a recent resolution passed by the California Federation of Teachers in which the union “reaffirms support for death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal?”

The American Federation of Teachers, led by Randi Weingarten, has to date issued no statement in opposition to this offensive resolution.

And what does the AFL-CIO, the parent to the AFT think?  More importantly, what do the police members of the AFL-CIO think?  After all, Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing one of their own.

Or don’t they care?

At what point will the teachers’ unions be more concerned with the pitiful state of public education than they are about the fate of a convicted cop killer, or other unrelated issues like gay rights, national health care or American foreign policy?

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Francis Cianfrocca and Pejman Yousefzadeh to discuss Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, plus Francis explains why the Fed loaned billions to foreign banks.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

GOP Aim: Cut $4 Trillion
The GOP Path to Prosperity
Paul Ryan is Not Jesus, But His Path To Prosperity Gospel is Really Good
US Debt Clock
Foreign Banks Tapped Fed’s Secret Lifeline Most at Crisis Peak

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter

Despite firm denials, no objective evidence it occurred – and even exculpatory video and audio evidence that Tea Party protesters never hurled the N-word at U.S.Represntative John Lewis on Capitol Hill in March of last year, the media was quick to trumpet the otherwise unsupported claim to malign the overall Tea Party effort.

The state-run media is now pushing their anti-tea party propaganda from sources at the Huffington Post. And, they’re reporting this propaganda without a single piece of evidence.

On Saturday the media reported without a shred of evidence that tea party protesters were shouting obscenities and “n***er” at black Representatives on Capitol Hill. The representatives said it happened as they walked from the Longworth office building to the Rayburn office building.

Yet, it seems as though if you are a powerful Illinois Democrat connected all the way up to the Governor’s office, you can hurl the epithet at a black college student and the official line from local and state police and the state’s Democrat political machine is mum’s the word. They’ll even throw you a birthday bash the next night. You’d almost think it was cause for celebration among white Illinois Democrats.

The politically connected head of Gov. Pat Quinn’s Southern Illinois security detail used a racial slur against a black college student in a Carlinville bar, starting a fight that preceded the officer’s resignation, the student says.

(more…)

The Senate will, one presumes, finally vote either this week or next to block EPA from imposing President Obama’s ‘other way to skin the cat’ of Kyoto-style energy rationing, by using the Clean Air Act – a law that EPA’s own public filings inescapably acknowledge was never intended for such purpose. What will be at stake is little less than the rule of law itself.

Policy sanity also stands to take a beating, or else gain a new lease on life. The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which by design strangles our ability to use them.  Further, the Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.

With über-green Germany, even nuke-happy France, appearing set to ramp up their coal use in the wake of Japan’s nuclear incident, the first rational response would be to call off EPA’s war on coal. Not to fight like mad to preserve and advance it.

But fight like mad to preserve and advance this war on coal is what the administration and its Senate enablers are doing.

And as George Mason University professor of science and public policy Thomas Lovejoy said in an astonishing admission to the Washington Post not long ago, in the context of this very Obama Power Grab:

“When Congress resists action on pressing environmental issues, regulation provides a way forward”.

Actually, no. Our Constitution – so quaint and outdated according to certain quarters though it may be (it’s still better than whatever it is we have today) – makes it quite plain that it is only when Congress decides to act that agencies have a way forward.

(more…)

From The Wall Street Journal:

Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.

Here are its major components:

• Reducing spending: This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.

(more…)

For the last several weeks, we have pointed out that the union fight in Wisconsin is more about union power and union dues than the actual members. It was also noted how unions were rushing back to get contracts signed before Scott Walker’s new law took effect.

Now, via Piece of Work In Progress comes irrefutable evidence that some unions in Wisconsin are so desperate to secure continued dues payments before Scott Walker’s union reform law takes effect that they are more than giving management everything it wants—at least one union actually gave management more than it was asking for—at the expense of its own members.

What you are about to hear is the audio of a portion of a March 15th meeting among the Sauk County, Wisconsin Board of Supervisors. The purpose of that portion of the meeting was to discuss the tentatively agreed to contracts with the SEIU and several AFSCME locals.

At that session, supervisors discussed ratification of proposed 33-month contracts for five separate bargaining units:

• AFSCME Local 3148 – Sauk County Health Care Center
• AFSCME Local 252 – Sauk County Sheriff’s Department (non-sworn employees)
• AFSCME Local 360 – Sauk County Highway Employees
• SEIU- Healthcare Wisconsin
• Wisconsin Professional Police Association (WPPA) – Clerical Unit

On the audio, Sauk County Corporation Counsel Todd Liebman is heard explaining how, prior to Scott Walker, the unions and the County were at “loggerheads” and heading to interest arbitration. Then, within the last month, the unions offered to accept the County’s final offers. To take it even further, Liebman explains, the SEIU came in and actually offered more concessions.

However, given the uncertainty of the new budget repair bill, the offers were initially rebuffed. Then, following Scott Walker’s signing of the new law, Liebman explains, one of the union business agents came to him and offered the county “carte blanche with regard to the economic conditions of employment.” (more…)

This Thursday, April 7, Senator Corker of Tennessee will be the opening speaker at the Cato Institute’s conference on “The Economic Impact of Government Spending” (an event that is free and open to the public, so register here if you want to attend).

The Senator will be discussing his proposal to cap and then gradually reduce the burden of government spending, measured as a share of gross domestic product. With federal outlays currently consuming about 25 percent of economic output, excessive federal spending is America’s main fiscal problem.

Corker’s proposal would put federal spending on a 10-year glide path so that it eventually shrinks to 20.6 percent of GDP. This chart, from the Senator’s upcoming presentation, shows that government will grow at a much slower pace as a result of this restraint. Indeed, total savings over the 10-year period, measured against a baseline that assumes the federal government is left on auto-pilot, would exceed $5 trillion.

There are two things to admire about Senator Corker’s CAP plan.

First, he correctly understands that the problem is the size of government. As explained in this video, spending is the problem and deficits are a symptom of that problem.

Unfortunately, many policy makers focus on the budget deficit, which often makes them susceptible to misguided policies such as higher taxes. At best, such an approach merely substitutes one bad way of financing federal spending with another bad way of financing federal spending. And it’s much more likely that higher taxes will simply lead to more spending, thus exacerbating the real problem.

(more…)