As the Burlington Free Press reports:

Of the three lawmakers, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, gave the most in bonuses. Twenty-nine of his personal office staffers received bonuses ranging from $1,500 to $5,000 last year, totaling $138,830. Leahy, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, also gave bonuses to 25 committee staffers, totaling $112,048.

Leahy’s spokesman, David Carle, said many other lawmakers use Leahy’s office salary structure “because it is flexible and fair and rewards good work.”

Sanders gave $2,000 bonuses to 32 people on his personal staff, totaling $64,000. He also gave $2,000 bonuses to two staffers on the Senate health subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, which he chairs.

Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat, gave each of his 17 staffers a $2,000 bonus, totaling $34,000. House office budgets are authorized by calendar year and Senate office budgets are authorized by fiscal year.

News of the taxpayer-funded big bonuses comes at a time when state budgets are being slashed, the nation’s unemployment is still above eight percent, and the U.S. government is $15 trillion in debt.

Still, say members of the Vermont delegation, their staff members deserve the bonuses because they did a good job:

The Vermont lawmakers saw the bonuses as a way to reward hard-working staffers, many of whom earn much less than they would in the private sector.

Michael Briggs, a spokesman for independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “We have an extremely hard-working and aggressive staff that puts in long hours and (Sanders) could hire more people but does not. That’s how he’s able to give back to the taxpayers the amount that he does at the end of the fiscal year.”

Indeed, the Burlington Free Press notes that Sen. Sanders will return 10.9 percent of his office’s $3 million annual budget.  Sen. Leahy, who also has a $3 million office budget will give back 11.7 percent.

But Bradford Fitch, the CEO of a nonprofit group called the Congressional Management Foundation that advises members of Congress on procedures, says giving staffers bonuses is a good idea:

“It still is extremely helpful to managing an office,” he said. “Especially when you take into consideration that, in general, congressional staff get anywhere from 20 to 30 percent less pay than counterparts with similar experience and education in the private sector. Bonuses are one of the ways that they can compensate for that.”

While relatively few working Americans may receive year-end bonuses, according to a 2010 House Compensation Study, handing out bonuses to congressional staff members is a rather common practice:

Lawmakers have the discretion to decide whether to give bonuses, and most do. A 2010 House Compensation Study by ICF International found that 77 percent of 133 offices surveyed gave bonuses that year. That’s down from 89 percent in 2009 and 92.3 percent in 2006, according to the study, produced for the House Chief Administrative Office.

Perhaps Sen. Sanders, who is himself a self-described socialist, and the rest of Congress would do well to remember Lady Margaret Thatcher’s dictum that the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

“While we saw positive numbers in November, December’s totals failed to meet even the latest revenue projections. Coupled with higher spending tied to unrealized cost savings, these latest revenue figures create growing concern that legislative action may be needed in the near future to ensure that the State can meet its payment obligations.”

The above are “code words” that the state is financially dysfunctional and getting worse. The December report shows that compared to last year, California revenue, at $39.4 billion, is down by 11.2% due mostly to a 26.4% nose-dive in sales tax collection, and state spending of $52.3 billion is currently running 33% higher than the state’s revenue.

The Controller does not seem impressed that Governor Brown and the California State Legislature’s only solution to fix this budget mess is to relying on voters’ willingness to approve an initiative to raise the already hefty sales tax they pay by 13% and add another surtax on the wealthy to generate $6.9 billion in revenue. Even if the public shocks pollsters and actually passes the tax increase, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) calculated the initiative would only generate $4.8 billion per year.

Prior to the Controller’s grim report of a $5.2 billion budget miss, the LAO had already estimated that state’s revenue would be $3.7 billion below forecast and “trigger” $2 billion of automatic budget cuts to K-14 education. The LAO’s estimate of a $13 billion deficit next year, due mostly to constitutionally required “settle up” payments for short-checking public schools in prior years, now looks like a $20 billion deficit.

California’s budget projections are so consistently whacky, the Governor closed the “California Recovery website” this summer to avoid ridicule regarding its ludicrously optimistic recovery projections. Despite creating one of the most unfriendly business climates in the nation, California socialist politicians were able to do “vida loca” spending on the economic momentum of an epic 20 year real estate boom. With the real estate bust now in its fourth year, California ranks third in the nation in foreclosures and, according to “The Foreclosure Radar Report”, is one of only two states in the nation where foreclosures increased in December.

The credit rating agencies will undoubtedly take a very hard look at downgrading California’s municipal bond debt, which is already the worst rated in the nation at only two notches above junk. But the budget disaster also spells bad news for the credit ratings of California local government. Earlier this year, the Legislature passed a law striping $2 billion per year from state’s 400 redevelopment agencies to augment their own budget shortfall.

Moody’s Investor Services immediately put $11.6 billion of California tax allocation bonds on review for a possible downgrade. Moody’s stated: “If left unchanged, this law would be significantly negative for bondholder credit. This legislation could result in multi-notch downgrades on bonds of the dissolved redevelopment agencies.”

Perhaps California’s budget problems can be best understood from a Fox Television interview of Joseph Vranich, President of the “Business Relocation Coach”, who makes his living moving companies out of California to avoid the “high businesses taxes and excessive regulations imposed on commercial enterprises of all types. Costs are illustrated by the fact that a business leaving the City of Los Angeles for a nearby county can save up to 20% in costs while moving to another state can save up to 40% in costs.”

Vranich pointed out that in the first half of 2011, there were 129 companies with 100 or more employees that moved out of the state. This averages 5.4 larger companies leaving for “greener pastures” per week, versus 3.9 per week in 2010 and only 1 per week in 2009. The top relocation destination is not China but rather neighboring business friendly states of Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Utah.

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview in 1976, famously said: “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them”. Had she lived in California 35 years later, she would have added: “or else the other people will take their money and just leave!”

Feel free to forward this Op Ed and or follow our Blog at www.chrissstreetandcompany.com.

From the Institute for Policy Studies website

IPS Executive Director John Cavanagh posed the following questions:

1. “How do we support the actual Occupy movement at this time… especially when some of the encampments have been shut down?”
2. “How do we expand the space for the ideas…that have been opened up by the Occupy movement?”

Cavanagh discussed the daily conference calls that Occupy organizers have been holding to coordinate strategy across the country, and urged participants to join in a national day of protest in solidarity with the activists who had been removed from Zuccotti Park in New York.

One of the sites providing information about local protests is november17.org, which is apparently affiliated with Van Jones’s Rebuilding the American Dream organization.

Cavanagh compared the Occupy protests with the Hoovervilles of the Great Depression, and suggested that both were protests against difficult economic conditions that the government failed to address. He also claimed that the Occupy movement was taking on the small-government, free-market legacy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

In contrast, Cavanagh said, the Occupy movement is posing the following ideas:

1. The importance of inequality–”the 99% versus the 1%”–which allegedly is associated with racism, sexism, and homophobia;
2. Wall Street as the central problem in America today, as opposed to a “green,” Main Street-centered economy;
3. America is not broke, as the Tea Party claims; rather, there is “plenty of money out there” for public sector jobs.

Cavanagh also claimed that the “crackdown” on Occupy protests was timed to coincide with the deadline for the congressional Supercommittee’s recommendations on the federal deficit and national debt.

Next, IPS Trustee Barbara Ehrenreich claimed that conservatives had not been successful in criticizing the Occupy movement because the activists represented the “economically desperate” people in America today, as opposed to the privileged youth of the 1960s. She cited the presence of homeless people at Occupy demonstrations as evidence–and added that it is illegal to be homeless and “practically illegal” to “look indigent” in the United States today.

Ehrenreich also discussed strategic concerns that result from evictions: “This movement is becoming, perforce, more kinetic. It has to move.” She called for a “flying squadron, or even flash mob approach.”

Cavanagh then spoke again, describing the various different left-wing groups that had come together to support the Occupy movement, and applauded the labor movement for being involved without trying to “take over” the movement, as it had done 20 years ago.

In response to a question from a participant on the call, Cavanagh said that the Occupy movement should not oppose “capitalism” as such. Instead, he said, Occupy should try to change the “form of capitalism” to a “Main Street capitalism,” which he proposed to do by growing the size government and forcing Wall Street to “downsize.” Ehrenreich commented that the Occupy activists believed that they were creating that new form of capitalism in the Occupy encampments themselves, and that the challenge was to translate that experience to the economy as a whole.

In response to questions about the recent evictions of Occupy protestors, Ehrenreich called the police actions the “ugly, militarized side” of American government. Cavanagh cited a positive article about Occupy in the Washington Post style section as an example of how the movement had actually improved the use of public spaces. He noted the irony that Democrat mayors and “progressive” city councils were the ones shutting down the protests.

“Where is Barack Obama? Where are the Democratic leaders who celebrated the use of public spaces in Egypt… and Wisconsin…by ordinary people protesting injustice? How can they stand silently as mayors in their own party close them down?” Cavanagh asked.

He commended Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), who had criticized New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for removing the encampment at Zuccotti Park, and billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who Cavanagh said was leading efforts among the “1 percent” to help the “99 percent.”

“Stage 1 was to create national outrage, and that’s been done. Stage 2 was to change the national conversation, and that’s been done. Stage 3 is to create meaningful changes,” Cavanagh said, and identified the specific goal of raising taxes on the rich–the same goal that is at the center of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and Democrats’ legislative agenda in Congress. Later, he also mentioned a transaction tax on Wall Street trades, which would have the specific goals of slowing down markets and providing new revenues for redistribution and for foreign aid to encourage “green” economies in the developing world. In addition to that legislative goal, Cavanagh added, Occupy should also aim at “changing what is acceptable in this country” in terms of societal norms about equality, moving closer to Europe’s disdain for high executive pay, for example.

Responding to concerns about the racial diversity (or lack thereof) at the Occupy protests, Cavanagh acknowledged that most of the protests were “predominantly white,” but said that there were more black people at protests in cities with higher black populations. He said the lack of Latino activists was the result of fears of deportation as the result of arrests at Occupy protests.

When a participant asked about how reports of crime at Occupy protests were being used as excuses to shut down the demonstrations, Ehrenreich said: “We should be very concerned about the sudden concern of these mayors…for health and safety.” She did acknowledge the presence of crime and violence at Occupy sites, including a man carrying an AK-47 at Occupy Atlanta. Yet she said that activists should use irony to criticize the way mayors have used such crime and violence as justifications for their actions.

Next, Cavanagh contrasted the Tea Party, which elected its members to Congress, to the political strategy of the Occupy movement. The Tea Party, he claimed, had never had “a critique that government was captured by elite corporations–in fact, they like the fact that government” serves those corporations. The Occupy movement, he said, would be more distrustful of the political process, even though some of its political supporters might embrace “anti-Wall Street” positions in the 2012 elections.

As for media coverage of Occupy, Cavanagh criticized the press for not covering the human effects of the ongoing recession. Ehrenreich added that the movement’s goal was to encourage the media to cover the forces that encourage poverty in America, and that it could do so by hiring journalists who had been laid off.

A participant in the call called on fellow activists to “Occupy Yourself”–that is, to exemplify in their own lives the changes that they would like to see in the world.

(Quotes may be inexact, as they were transcribed in real time.)

Today’s British youth have been indoctrinated in school that Thatcher was an anti-democratic fascist, who denied the public their entitlements. It should not be surprising that this generation of “Mini-Me” leftists would act out now that Parliamentary control a broke U.K. has gone to the Conservative Party under David Cameron to return the nation to solvency.

It has been 21 years since Thatcher retired as British Prime Minister. During her 11 year reign as the “Iron Lady” she systematically reversed England’s precipitous economic and military decline. When the she became Prime Minister in 1979 the U.K. was in a severe recession. Violent riots broke out in the South London neighborhood of Brixton over demands for more social spending. Scores of buildings were burned and 2500 policemen were injured and as the violence raged. The rioting spread to Liverpool where over a four day period 150 buildings burned and 781 more police officers were injured. Police were finally forced to use CS gas for the first time on the British mainland to quell the unrest.

The Iron Lady’s tough response to the rioters was applauded by the public and gave her the mandate to carry out her agenda of fiscal conservatism. She implemented economic policies that led to the sale or closure of state-owned companies, deregulation of British industry and the financial sectors, flexibility in labor markets, and withdrawal of state subsidies. After a rough start, British GDP rose twice as fast as government spending for the first time since the 1920s. Thatcher demanded balanced budgets and refused to be suckered into adopting the euro currency. When Thatcher retired in 1990, the U.K. was considered a growth engine of Europe.

The Labor Party under Tony Blair took back control of Parliament in 1997. Blair described his “New Labor” party in 2001: “We are a left of center party, pursuing economic prosperity and social justice as partners and not as opposites”. Regardless this rhetoric; Blair stayed true to Clause IV of the Labor Party’s constitution that defines the party as “Democratic Socialist” by appointing Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Over the next 10 years, Brown succeeded in making the Bank of England independent and creating international agreements on Climate Change, Cap & Trade, and elimination of poverty. Brown increased the social program funding using a new inflation measure to hype the Consumer Price Index. Brown sought every opportunity to expand government, take greater control of education, and raise taxes. According to the OECD, UK taxation increased from a 39.3% share of gross domestic product in 1997 to 42.4% in 2006; a higher level than even Germany. Between 1999 and 2002 Brown sold 60% of the UK’s gold reserves, approximately 395 tons, at $275 an ounce. Shortly before gold entered its current bull market that has taken the metal to over $1750 an ounce.

Brown became Prime Minister in 2007 and stayed true to his “Democratic Socialist” credentials by expanding deficit spending with a scheme he called “The manifesto for change”. He even attempted to introduce a “better constitution” that is “clear about the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in Britain today”. Brown raised union wages by 26% for the National Health System and squandered money building new eco-towns for 100,000 subsidized homeowners.

When the global recession hit in 2008; Brown attempted to stimulate demand through a myriad of schemes; including a bank rescue package worth $850 billion and cut the Value Added Tax (Sales Tax) by 2.5%. The U.K. ran deficits of as much as 14% of GDP, until Standard and Poors threatened to downgrade Britain’s credit rating and spending was forced to be slashed.

By the time the Conservative party took control under Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010, the U.K. government was so broke that the National Health Service had a 12 month delay for hip replacements, cataract surgery, tonsil removal, varicose vein treatments, children’s hearing aids, and the list goes on.

In the aftermath of the recent violence, British public opinion has swung resoundingly in favor of the Conservatives push for fiscal sanity. The riots that happened in England will probably be repeated in Europe, Asia and the U.S. as social welfare programs collapse under their massive debts. To most young people around the world; Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were portrayed by their school teachers and college professors as reactionary dinosaurs of some horrible age. Don’t expect these youth to cheer for the transition back to fiscal responsibility.

Bookmark or forward Chriss Street reports at www.chrissstreetandcompany.com

Ronald Reagan was hailed as “a great American hero” Monday as his admirers unveiled a 10-foot-tall (3-meter-tall) statue of the former U.S. president near the American embassy in London.

Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser and secretary of state in President George W. Bush’s administration, joined British Foreign Secretary William Hague at the morning ceremony in Grosvenor Square.

“Statues bring us to face to face with our heroes long after they are gone,” Hague said “Ronald Reagan is without question a great American hero; one of America’s finest sons, and a giant of 20th-century history. You may be sure that the people of London will take this statue to their hearts.”

Hague also brought a message from former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Reagan’s staunch ally, whose frail health has made her public appearances very rare.

“She has asked me to say these words to you: Ronald Reagan was a great president and a great man—a true leader for our times,” Hague said.

“He held clear principles and acted upon them with purpose. Through his strength and his conviction he brought millions of people to freedom as the Iron Curtain finally came down.”

Read the whole thing here. Remember that one of Obama’s first actions as President was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had long had an honored place in the White House. The symbolic rudeness of the act should have foreshadowed everything to come.

President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and soon-to-be-ex Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi saw a repudiation of their irresponsible and out of touch left-wing agenda, and the comeback of a vibrant and hopeful conservative movement – with women leading the way.

A large number of Republican women ran for Congress this year – 51 to be exact – and those winning their races included Sandy Adams of Florida, Diane Black of Tennessee, Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, Jaime Herrera of Washington, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, and Martha Roby of Alabama, all of whom took over seats previously held by Democrats. They will join Fire from the Heartland cast members and incumbent Congresswomen Michele Bachmann, Cynthia Lummis, and Jean Schmidt in the House this January.

Some of the other notable GOP women who prevailed include rising stars Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez, the first female governors of South Carolina and New Mexico, respectively, and Kelly Ayotte, who trounced liberal Rep. Paul Hodes to become the junior U.S. Senator from New Hampshire.

When one traces the roots of the conservative movement, women have always served as its back bone.

The leadership of strong conservative women throughout history such as Clare Boothe Luce, Phyllis Schlafly, and Margaret Thatcher brought forth the leaders of today like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, which in turn yielded this year’s crop of female leaders.

2010 has truly been the Year of the Conservative Woman and Fire from the Heartland tells many of these women’s stories in their own voices. Strong women like Sonnie Johnson, Dana Loesch, Jenny Beth Martin, Michelle Moore, Deneen Borelli, and Jamie Radtke felt compelled to spring into action and become the voices of today’s conservative movement because they saw their families’ futures threatened.

We saw “Mama Grizzlies” who had never been involved with politics before take to the streets and lead Tea Party rallies. As Rep. Bachmann says in the film, “It’s not that men don’t see what’s going on, but women feel it.” It is with these thoughts and concerns that American women led the charge to take our country back.

Conservative women lit a fire from the heartland and on election night we saw that fire spread from coast to coast in the form of GOP victories.

Our latest guest, author and journalist Claire Berlinski, talks about the Iron Lady, why she matters and what she stood for.  She suggests that were Thatcher and President Obama to meet, the former Prime Minister would “eat him for lunch.”  Even more surprisingly, Berlinski takes offense to the notion that Sarah Palin might be compared to Thatcher.  What are their similarities? “Sarah Palin is a woman; she’s from a small town; she’s a conservative.  The comparison ends there.”

Berlinski goes on to discuss her past 6 years living in Istanbul, moderate Muslims and moderate Islam, and why Americans should be paying more attention to Turkey.

Watch the full episode below:

Follow @UncKnowledge on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.