Success seems to be largely a matter of hanging on
after others have let go.
William Feather
Liberty Thought of the Day
TSA: Not Just in Airports Anymore...
TSA's Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, or VIPR squads, were introduced in 2005:
What VIPR squads do are patrol public areas at major commuter or patron areas such as train stations, concert venues, etc. Essentially, VIPR teams often stop and search passengers or patrons for "counter-terrorism" purposes. Many passengers find this to be intrusive and detrimental to traveling, even though it is supposed to make traveling safer.The budget for VIPR squads has rapidly escalated to $100M with a near-quadrupling of teams. This is a typical pushing-on-a-string bureaucratic empire-building, with a lack of transparency, accountability, distinctive competencies, and standards. Keep in mind wherever VIPR squads work, relevant localized or entity (e.g., Amtrak) security already exists. Now imagine unconstitutional NY arbitrary "stop-and-frisk" procedures federalized....
New JOTY Nominee: Thomas Perez, Labor Secretary
Perez, a newly installed union minion, is unconstitutionally abusing his authority by responding to union complaints about Jerry Brown's lame pension reforms (which avoid dealing with the brunt of Baby Boomer pensions, eliminate some end-of-career pension-spiking game-playing, and sets up a new, less costly pension vehicle for newer state employees) by threatening to cut off up to billions in transit subsidies:
The contentious issue involves changes to the pensions of 20,000 transit workers approved in a law designed to ensure the retirement funds for all state workers remain solvent. The pension reform does not affect existing workers. New workers will receive lower retirement benefits, while existing workers will see no reduction. The state expects to save about $240 billion over 30 years.First, should the People's Republic of California be surprised that the feds will pull strings attached to money? Second, I have a nuanced stance: I wouldn't mind much if the highway trust fund is shored up by denied transit subsidies; I don't think taxpayers should subsidize user fees. But what Perez is doing is unconstitutional on several levels. The 1964 law he is citing isn't really relevant, and Perez is targeting a state law which applies to all state/local employees, not just transit. (Even if you rolled back reforms for one special interest group, you're one equal protection lawsuit away from a uniform rollback--which is Perez' real goal.) But this is also a clear violation of the tenth amendment and analogous to Chief Roberts' "gun to the head" opinion, casting aside the Dems' extortion for the states to increase their Medicaid eligibility, with their split cost share of relevant funding or face a total cutoff of the federal match
Am I surprised? No. This blog opposed Thomas Perez' nomination, although I may not have written up my objections; see Judicial Watch for a relevant critique.
A New Favorite Portal: PensionTsunami.com
I may add this to my blogroll. Here's a good relevant excerpt on the California state pension system:
Back in 2005, some 1,841 retirees pulled down more than $100,000 a year in pension checks from the California Public Employees Retirement System.And by the end of 2012, membership [had increased] to 14,763, according to data from CalPERS. That's up 700 percent in less than a decade. The rate of inflation over the same period was 38 percent .
Consider: In 1999 – the year before more generous retirement formulas started snowballing statewide – there were 16,071 retirements, and the average benefit was $20,532 per year. In 2012, there were nearly twice as many retirements – 33,330 – and the average annual benefit had almost doubled, to $36,468.
The latest data shows that the top dog remained Bruce Malkenhorst – a Huntington Beach resident who was once the city of Vernon's city manager, finance director, redevelopment director, city clerk, city treasurer and head of the municipal light and power operation, pretty much at the same time – with an annual benefit of $540,882. CalPERS launched a review and slashed it down to $115,000 last year, but Malkenhorst dubbed that "elder abuse" and is fighting the reduction in court. He'll keep getting the full amount until all appeals are settled.There is a treasure trove of stories, particularly on public pension shenanigans, e.g.:
- California state retirees don't like public disclosure of their identification in funding transparency law;
- San Bernandino should hear on the disposition of their bankruptcy status this week; Calpers is opposing the filing (San Bernandino halted its payments for a year after filing although it has recently resumed). Just as in the case of Detroit, we may see some precedents as to whether pension/funds may be forced to share the pain of austerity budgeting.
The reason I started this thread was a reflection I had while listening through a backlog of Cato Institute Event podcasts. There was a reflection about medical malpractice reform and its discussion by the GOP in national politics; I immediately knew where the speaker was going on this; in fact, I've found myself cringing as yet another GOP lawmaker reiterates the soundbite "repeal and replace" ObamaCare for related reasons (it's not the 'repeal' part that makes me wince). One of the persistent criticisms of the GOP by libertarians is that it's merely a lighter version of "Progressive" Big Government.
In a certain sense, if and when the GOP (unnecessarily) concedes to "replace", it surrenders the concept of limited government; it seems to buy into the myth that government is the solution, than a main problem in an inflation-bound health sector. To a certain extent, I have found myself wincing a bit at the states' being discussed as a crucible of democracy; maybe it's the way I've been hearing it since my views have become more libertarian, but it now comes across as if the states are the minor leagues and the Feds are the majors, that a successful policy reform can get called up to the Feds which make a congruent national standard and propagate it across the states by fiat. To me, this not only violates the principles of federalism, but violates the distinctive competencies of the states and the federal government. These distinctions were at the back of my mind in the discussion of whether RomneyCare was the precursor to ObamaCare. Romney was caught in a box here--I think his implementation started with a lower-than-average uninsured percentage. If you apply the same proposals, say in Texas, the price tag is much higher in nature and extent. It is true more recently Romney specifically conceded that his reforms may not be applicable to other states.
I think as a matter of tactics, the GOP will try to provide a less centralized, more feasible, market-friendly alternative version of domestic policies. One of the related issues in healthcare was malpractice insurance. Trial lawyers are a natural Dem special-interest constituency and fight malpractice reform (which, among other things, wants to cap damages--and relevant offset legal fees). So yes, I see defensive medicine (to cover the physician's butt) as a key cost driver, with adverse effects on the supply of doctors. Given the fact that the government, and in particularly the Feds, is funding a lot of health care, I see malpractice reform as a tactic for trying to moderate relevant federal costs.
But, of course, when I hear a Cato Institute analyst argue that this is more a state issue, I have to agree; physicians are licensed to practice at the state level. I do see what Texas did in reforming malpractice insurance--in the process attracting an influx of physicians--as a true example of a state as a democratic crucible. It was up to other states to meet or beat Texas' reforms.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
The Beatles, "Old Brown Shoe". This brings an end to this round of my Beatles and groups retrospectives. My next theme is selective Motown hits
