If you loved TARP, were enamored with the government bailout of banks and financial institutions and orgasmic at the government takeover of GM and Chrysler, you’ll love this as well: Legislation introduced last week could shift costs of union pension plans to taxpayers in an attempt to stave off organized labor’s pension funding crisis. Senator Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat, introduced the Create Jobs & Save Benefits Act of 2010 to address the funding problems faced by union-administered multi-employer pension plans. Multi-employer pension plans have to cover the benefits of members, even if their companies are defunct. Currently the costs are shared among the companies that remain in the pool, but Casey’s bill proposes offloading them to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) , a federal corporation, which backs the pensions of 44 million workers, more than 75 percent of which are nonunion. “Multi-employer plans face unique challenges that are overburdening pension plans and the bottom lines of companies,” Casey said. “My legislation would help correct these problems to protect the pensions of workers and unburden companies stuck paying a crippling expense that threatens its existence and the jobs of its employees.” Casey said his bill would cost the federal government taxpayer [there, fixed it for him - ed.] $8 to 10 billion. I choked right about here – it would cost $8 to 10 billion? In a pig’s eye. Here, let me lay it out for you – if Bob Casey can push this through Congress and rescue private union administered pensions via taxpayer money, what has been set? Why precedent, of course. Now refer to the story about California just below this one and tell me what the number you see there amounts too. If Congress grants relief to union administered pensions, it’s only fair that it do the same with those owed by state governments who are also upside-down on pension benefits to the tune of multiples of billions of dollars (in CA’s case 500 billion), right? I mean can you expect California’s pension debt to be characterized as anything other than a “crippling expense” that “threatens” the financial viability of the state and “the jobs of its employees?” Yeah, I can’t either. But I can imagine California and other states petitioning the federal government under the same provisions this plan uses to rescue private union-administered pension plans. Can’t you? $8 -10 billion cost. What a load of crap to begin with. And then add the more than probable addition of state pension funds. But, of course, you can count of PAYGO being duly invoked and used on this one, can’t you? Yeah, in the pig’s other eye. ~McQ
For some in the left-wing mainstream media the truth is too much to handle. I am referring specifically to Salon.com’s Alex Koppelman who is gunning for a spot on the list of “useful idiots” defending organized crime syndicate ACORN . (Salon’s Joe Conason is already on the list .) Koppelman didn’t like what I wrote yesterday about Patrick Corvington working for the ACORN-friendly Annie E.
&cat=7&pid=9174&cache=true">
&cat=19&pid=9174&cache=true " alt="Today Profiles ‘Angel of Death Row’ Who Calls Death Penalty ‘A Barbaric Institution’" class="alignleft" />
Andrea Lyon, the attorney for accused child murderer Casey Anthony, was invited on Thursday’s Today show to discuss the case and promote her new book and was given a platform to call the death penalty “A barbaric institution,” and to spout that the U.S. is in the “company of Iraq and Iran and China.” NBC’s Meredith Vieira conducted the live interview with Lyon but not before Kerry Sanders set the table in a story accompanied by a headline that championed: “Angel of Death Row, Casey Anthony’s Lawyer Takes On The System.” In his piece Sanders touted: “The once tie-dyed idealist from the ’60s has one agenda: preventing any one from ever being executed.” Near the end of Vieira’s in-studio interview with Lyon the Today co-anchor prompted the attorney to criticize capital punishment, as seen in the following exchange: MEREDITH VIEIRA: In about the 30 seconds that I do have left, even if Casey Anthony were to be found guilty when this case goes to trial, which should be in June, you do not believe anybody should be given the death penalty, that it’s never appropriate. Why? ANDREA LYON: I believe that the death penalty is a barbaric institution. We’re the only civilized country – we’re in the company of Iraq and Iran and China, and I’m against the death penalty. The following is the full segment as it was aired on the January 7, Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: Now to the woman leading the defense of Florida mother Casey Anthony. Anthony is behind bars awaiting trial for the 2008 murder of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. We’re gonna talk to her lawyer, Andrea Lyon, in a moment
A Pennsylvanian reports: “Senator Casey’s voicemailbox was full when I called on Saturday afternoon.” He certainly deserves an earful.
Nebraska Right to Life on Nelson’s choice: Lincoln—-Nebraska Right to Life and pro-life Nebraskans have been betrayed by Senator Ben Nelson’s agreement with Democratic leadership to become their 60th vote for cloture on the Senate healthcare bill, propped up by abortion compromise language which in no way resembles the Stupak amendment in the House bill or the Nelson/Hatch amendment attempt in the Senate. Both of those amendments had protections against taxpayer funding of abortion. “Senator Nelson had a chance to ensure that the longstanding principle of the Hyde Amendment against federal funding of abortion with narrow exceptions, would be placed in the Senate healthcare legislation. He dashed any hope of that with his late-night agreement with Senators Reid, Boxer and Schumer on unacceptable language that he claimed would address pro-life concerns.” said Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life (NRL). “Senator Nelson and his Chief of Staff, Tim Becker, called me last night at 7:30 p.m
Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tells National Review Online that Sen. Bob Casey’s brokering of a potential compromise on the Senate health-care bill’s abortion language is a “betrayal” to the pro-life cause. Casey, the Democrat who defeated Santorum in 2006, has been negotiating the bill’s abortion language in recent days with Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), a key undecided vote in the Democratic caucus. According to the Washington Post , Casey “proposed a compromise that would more clearly segregate public and private funds in the new insurance exchanges for individuals who do not have access to affordable coverage through an employer,” as well as create “a temporary $1,000 increase in the tax credit for adoptive parents and a new federal fund to assist teenagers, college students or victims of domestic violence who are pregnant and without resources.” Nelson told a radio station in his home state on Thursday that Casey’s outreach “isn’t sufficient” and that “the basic question about the funding of abortion has not been answered yet.” “The premise of these negotiations is to get Nelson language that will provide him cover without doing anything to protect babies,” says Santorum. “Bob Casey Sr. built up great will in the pro-life community. Now his son is using his name to give cover to a bill that does great harm the pro-life cause.
Congressional Quarterly has this: Nelson said Casey’s abortion language was another in a series of congressional attempts to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal subsidies; he said the language had been sent to some “constituency groups” for vetting, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. A representative of the bishops’ group did not respond to an inquiry Wednesday. But in a Dec. 14 letter to the Senate, the bishops’ secretariat of pro-life activities made clear that schemes to segregate federal funds from money used to pay for abortions would not pass muster. “Attempts to achieve such segregation are irrelevant to current policy, which bars federal funds from being used for any part of a package that covers elective abortions,” the archbishop of Galveston-Houston, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, wrote. DiNardo noted that on Dec.
Sentor Nelson is reportedly looking at abortion language, but some leading pro-life stalwarts have not seen whatever it is. (If you are under the impression Nelson or Casey are under the direction of the National Right to Life Commitee or the Catholic bishops, you’d be wrong.) It’s my understanding that if Nelson is, in fact, looking at manager’s amendment language, neither of those groups have seen it.
