Bend ovee New York ! Wither Government. Chaos! Anarchy! Lost Revenue!

[Lumi]

Wither Government. Chaos! Anarchy! Lost Revenue!


New York Gov. David Paterson is warning that if he is forced to shut down government next week chaos and anarchy will rule in the state.

The ultimate result of an economic situation created by the state.

?No one knows the full ramifications of a government shutdown,? said Paterson. ?It would create unimaginable chaos around the state and the greater metropolitan areas,? reports WCBS TV.

The legislature in the Empire State has failed to pass a budget and this will result in doomsday, according to Paterson.

?Such chaos includes closing all state parks, motor vehicles offices, courts, and even the lottery. Public assistance payments would not be made and unemployment payments might also be held up,? reports Marcia Kramer for WCBS.
No state registration (and fees) of motor vehicles! No courts to convict people for violating myriad laws imposed by the state and throwing the victims into the prison-industrial complex! No state lottery to fleece the plebs! No bureaucrats collecting fees at state parks and ticketing people for littering or double parking! Chaos, indeed ? for the parasite state. A time out for just about all other New Yorkers.

Except the dependent class of welfare ?recipients? receiving ?public assistance? (receiving stolen goods) and millions reduced to going on the dole thanks to the bankster manipulated economy that creates and destroys jobs.

Naturally if cut off from the ?insurance? teat many of these folks will go into the street and break and burn things. Can you blame them? Slaves often rebel.

Paterson has called New York politicos who will not go along with his budget plan thugs. Republicans want more cuts than those offered by the gov. Paterson?s piecemeal cuts include delaying ?welfare grant? (stolen goods) increases, denying welfare to folks who do not meet employment requirements (as if there are any jobs to be had in New York or anywhere else), and reducing what bureaucrats call a ?personal needs allowance? for drug addicts (the CIA ships in the drugs and the tax payers are forced at gunpoint to fund expensive programs to get them off the drugs ? an endless cycle).

New Yorkers need not worry though ? for now. It looks like Paterson and the lawmakers will come up with a deal by Monday and the budget problems of the state will limp along until something finally breaks and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Only martial law will stop the anarchy and chaos after that happens.

 

[Lumi]

Chaos, Anarchy To Reign If Paterson Shuts Down NY

Chaos, Anarchy To Reign If Paterson Shuts Down NY

Chaos, Anarchy To Reign If Paterson Shuts Down NY
Monday Could Be Doomsday If Budget Deal Can't
That's what New York Gov. David Paterson is warning if he's forced to shut down the government in a few days.

The clowns in the state Legislature, now deadlocked for 71 days on the budget, are ready to take down the "big tent" and bring state government to a standstill. At least that's what Paterson thinks.

"No one knows the full ramifications of a government shutdown," said Paterson. "It would create unimaginable chaos around the state and the greater metropolitan areas."

Such chaos includes closing all state parks, motor vehicles offices, courts, and even the lottery. Public assistance payments would not be made and unemployment payments might also be held up.

The governor is in this pickle, in part, because wild cards like Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. (D-Bronx) and possibly scandal-scarred Sen. Pedro Espada (D-Bronx) might not go along.

Sources said the next emergency bill from Paterson will have up to $350 million in cuts to human services and mental health. But Republicans, who could become Paterson's new allies in the budget battle, aren't satisfied with that.

They want $750 million in new cuts like:


Delaying the 10 percent welfare grant increases
Withholding welfare from those who don't comply with employment requirements
Reducing the personal needs allowance of people in drug and alcohol programs

Diaz will not go along with that.

"I am not voting for any more cuts. I understand that it is painful," said Diaz. "But the governor is leaving me no choice."

The other renegade, Espada, thinks there might be a budget deal in the offing, but, he said, "I would vote no if such a massive cut were included because the state needs a fiscal plan.

Paterson called both men "thugs."

Espada, like some in both houses of the Legislature, thinks lawmakers will find a way to avoid bringing the government to a grinding halt.

"There will not be a shutdown on Monday. We've never wanted a shutdown," he said.

It's really too early to tell what is going to happen. Will Espada and Diaz back down? Will Paterson make a deal with the Republicans? Or will pigs fly?

 

[Lumi]

SYMPHONY OF DESTRUCTION

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

illuminati Was going to start thread--enemy within--but will fit well here if you don't mind adding the other edge of 2 edged sword contributing to bankruptcy of America.

There is of course the welfare state--and the pandering to those on the welfare tit--another tit right next to that would be love affair of Dem party and unions--

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_685635.html

Fantasy Land

Teachers unions and their Democrat enablers need this reality check: Taxpayers simply can't afford perpetual increases in public education funding.
In Washington, Education Secretary Arne Duncan predicts "catastrophe" (read: unionized teacher layoffs) if states don't get another $23 billion. That's on top of the stimulus bill's $100 billion for education.
In Harrisburg, the Pennsylvania State Education Association forecasts "disaster" unless Gov. Ed Rendell gets the $354 million hike in education spending in his budget proposal. That would replace Pennsylvania's share of that $100 billion -- and spare PSEA members cuts that the stimulus money's one-time nature should dictate.
It's as if federal K-12 spending hasn't doubled since 2000. And as if the private sector, which has lost 7.4 percent of jobs, hasn't suffered far worse during the recession than the public sector, which has lost fewer than 1 percent of jobs.
Sooner or later, Democrats must drop their fantasy-land approach to public education. Taxpayers who have to live within their means can't perpetually foot the bill for the unionized educratic establishment which doesn't.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/13/INSD1DRDIC.DTL

Public employee unions on the defensive


Peter Scheer
Sunday, June 13, 2010


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/13/INSD1DRDIC.DTL#ixzz0qp5Gxxfw

---At some point, however, voters turn resentful as they sense that:
-- They are underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have.
-- Government services, from schools to the Department of Motor Vehicles, are not good enough - not for the citizen individually nor the public generally - to justify the high and escalating cost.
We are at that point.
In California, government-sector unions, once among the most entrenched and powerful labor groups in the country, mainly have themselves to blame. For most of the postwar period, they were a force for progressive change, prospering by winning over public support for their agenda.
In the 1970s and '80s they backed laws like the Public Records Act and Brown Act to make state and local government more transparent. Because unions enjoyed broad-based political support, efforts to enhance government accountability and responsiveness to voters were seen - correctly - as benefiting the unions and their members. The public interest and public employees' interests were aligned.
But the unions switched strategies. Although the change was gradual, by the 1990s, California's government unions had decided that, rather than cultivate voter support for their objectives, they could exert more influence in the Legislature, and in the political process generally, by lavishing campaign contributions on lawmakers. Adopting the tactics of other special-interest groups, government unions paid lip service to democratic principles while excelling at the fundamentally anti-democratic strategy of writing checks to legislators, their election committees and political action committees.
While not illegal (in fact, such contributions are constitutionally protected), the unions' aggressive spending on candidates put them on the same moral low ground as casino-owning tribes, insurance companies and other special interests that have concluded that the best way to influence the legislative process is to, well, buy it.
Public unions' distrust of voters, and abandonment of government transparency as a union objective, could be seen in their successful push, in the mid-1990s, for a change to the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law. The new provision ensured that the public would have no access to collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by cities and counties - often representing 70 percent or more of their total operating budgets - until after the agreements were signed.
What happens when voters and the press have no opportunity to question elected officials about how they propose to pay for a lower retirement age, better health benefits for retirees' dependents, richer pension formulas and the like? The officials make contractual promises that are unaffordable, unsustainable and, in general, don't come due until after those elected officials have left office. In the case of Vallejo, this veil of secrecy and the symbiotic relationship it fosters led to municipal bankruptcy.
The biggest blow to unions' public support has come from revelations about jaw-dropping compensation and pension benefits. Police have received unwelcome attention for budget-busting overtime and the manipulation of eligibility rules for "disability pensions," which provide higher benefits and tax advantages. Other government employees, particularly managers, have been called out for "pension spiking": using vacation time, sick pay and the like to boost income in the last years of employment, which are the basis for calculating retirement benefits.
Such gaming of the system boosts starting pensions to levels that can approach, and even exceed, employees' salaries. Some examples from the reporting of the Contra Costa Times' Daniel Borenstein: A retired Northern California fire chief whose $185,000 salary morphed into a $241,000 annual pension; a county administrator whose $240,000 starting pension was 98 percent of final salary; and a sanitary district manager who qualified for a $217,000 pension on a salary of $234,000. At a time when most Californians anticipate an austere retirement (if they can afford to retire at all), government pensions are a source of real voter anger.
The harm to the credibility of public employee unions from these excesses is made far worse by the unions' attempts to hide them. The revelations about pay and pension abuses have surfaced only as a result of lawsuits. (The First Amendment Coalition has been a plaintiff in several of these cases.) Public employee unions, could have, and should have, taken the lead to stop abusive pension practices, which mainly involve managers and other senior staff. Instead, they have vigorously opposed disclosure of individual employees' salaries and pension amounts.
Public employee unions need to reboot. The old strategy of cynically buying political influence and excluding the public from decision making has run its course. Unions can rebuild public support by recommitting to an agenda of open government in the public interest. If they don't, they will be further marginalized.


Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a California nonprofit dedicated to government transparency and political accountability.

​

​

 

[Lumi]

I was waiting for this one to hit DTB

I was waiting for this one to hit DTB

Obama pleads for $50 billion in state, local aid





[SIZE=-1]By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 13, 2010; A01 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]
President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid "massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters" and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.
In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama defended last year's huge economic stimulus package, saying it helped break the economy's free fall, but argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. "We must take these emergency measures," he wrote in an appeal aimed primarily at members of his own party.

The letter comes as rising concern about the national debt is undermining congressional support for additional spending to bolster the economy. Many economists say more spending could help bring down persistently high unemployment, but with Republicans making an issue of the record deficits run up during the recession, many Democratic lawmakers are eager to turn off the stimulus tap.

"I think there is spending fatigue," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said recently. "It's tough in both houses to get votes."

Continues>>>>>

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Must be more of the pay as you go--liberal version

We've had a lot of that since his pay go pledge in February.

Obama signs Pay-Go law but also raises federal debt ceiling
By J. Taylor Rushing - 02/13/10 07:00 AM ET

President Barack Obama on Saturday congratulated Congress for restoring a requirement that the federal government spend only what it can afford ? a day after authorizing $1.9 trillion more federal debt.


http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ry-and-now-law-along-with-higher-debt-ceiling

My question is when do liberals finally see through this grifters rhetoric vs reality--and concede to the all hat no cattle tag put on him before he was elected.