◼ President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot! "The president wasn't joking," the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.
◼ WHITE HOUSE DISSES DRUDGE: 'BE MINDFUL OF YOUR SOURCES' - Charlie Spiering/Washington Examiner @CharlieSpiering
◼ CIA chief Petraeus denies interest in elected office - Reuters
◼ PAPER: 'Entire momentum and balance of election could change' - Michael Zennie/Daily Mail
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
New retirees receiving less in Social Security than they paid in, marking historic shift
◼ People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. - AP via FOX
"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."
If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.
As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.
Not anymore.
Labels:
Big Government,
Cost of Living,
Social Security,
Spending
Monday, August 6, 2012
When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots
◼ In the eyes of the Obama administration, most Democratic lawmakers, and left-leaning editorial pages across the country, voter fraud is a problem that doesn't exist. Allegations of fraud, they say, are little more than pretexts conjured up by Republicans to justify voter ID laws designed to suppress Democratic turnout. - Byron York/Washington Examiner
That argument becomes much harder to make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in "Who's Counting?", a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.
In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.... More at the link
That argument becomes much harder to make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in "Who's Counting?", a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.
In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.... More at the link
Labels:
Books,
Investigations,
Minnesota,
Scandals,
Voter fraud
Checking the Books
◼ Truth is, the citizens of California– especially on fiscal issues – are far more conservative. - Jon Coupal/Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association
To outsiders, California appears to be a decidedly liberal state. After all, Mitt Romney is unlikely to even contest California and our super high taxes and regulatory burden establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this sure isn’t Texas. It is true that, taken as a whole, our elected leadership is very much left of center, but what about the voters themselves?
Truth is, the citizens of California– especially on fiscal issues – are far more conservative. Want proof? While the majority in the California Legislature would pass tax increases in a heartbeat, California voters are far more reluctant. Indeed, the last eight proposed tax hikes on the statewide ballot have been defeated, including an increase in the tobacco tax.
So, even if most Californians are not “anti-government zealots,” most are strongly in favor of making sure that tax dollars are spent wisely. Californians, irrespective of their political leanings, want fiscal prudence.
That is probably why recent actions by our elected leadership and entrenched bureaucrats are so out of step with ordinary voters and why the public reaction to the recent scandals has been unbridled outrage....
One would think that with a full time legislature, our elected officials would have more than enough time to review the performance and efficiency of government programs. But, ironically, other states which have only a part time legislature do a much better job of being faithful stewards of public dollars.
The reason for this is simple. In California, being a legislator is a career, not a call to public service. And to maintain their political careers, politicians need to be in the news – a lot. Therefore, the incentive is to propose some new program that will grab attention on the six o’clock news rather than to do the more mundane work of oversight. Put bluntly, oversight is not nearly as sexy as a new program.... More at the link
To outsiders, California appears to be a decidedly liberal state. After all, Mitt Romney is unlikely to even contest California and our super high taxes and regulatory burden establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this sure isn’t Texas. It is true that, taken as a whole, our elected leadership is very much left of center, but what about the voters themselves?
Truth is, the citizens of California– especially on fiscal issues – are far more conservative. Want proof? While the majority in the California Legislature would pass tax increases in a heartbeat, California voters are far more reluctant. Indeed, the last eight proposed tax hikes on the statewide ballot have been defeated, including an increase in the tobacco tax.
So, even if most Californians are not “anti-government zealots,” most are strongly in favor of making sure that tax dollars are spent wisely. Californians, irrespective of their political leanings, want fiscal prudence.
That is probably why recent actions by our elected leadership and entrenched bureaucrats are so out of step with ordinary voters and why the public reaction to the recent scandals has been unbridled outrage....
One would think that with a full time legislature, our elected officials would have more than enough time to review the performance and efficiency of government programs. But, ironically, other states which have only a part time legislature do a much better job of being faithful stewards of public dollars.
The reason for this is simple. In California, being a legislator is a career, not a call to public service. And to maintain their political careers, politicians need to be in the news – a lot. Therefore, the incentive is to propose some new program that will grab attention on the six o’clock news rather than to do the more mundane work of oversight. Put bluntly, oversight is not nearly as sexy as a new program.... More at the link
Labels:
California,
California Legislation,
Taxes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)