Quote of the Day
New ideas are as valuable as any others,
but they should not be adopted simply because they are new.
Robert Heller
Those Poorly Paid Public Servants
These statistics were initially presented last year in The Fiscal Times:
- In 2009, 347 Texas state employees > $400,000, 53 > $600,00
- In 2010, 35 New York state employees > $400k
- In 2010, 171,689 Federal employees > $150,000
- 1n 2010, doctors at veterans hospitals and prisons $179,500 (up over 50% since 2005)
So here's the list:
- $1.2M to a former New York obscure university basketball coach,
- $847K for a Texas medical center fundraiser,
- $814K Chancellor for the University of Texas system,
- $784K for a California prison doctor,
- $737K for a California prison psychiatrist,
- $721K for a NY state hospital CEO,
- $622K for a California prison dentist,
- $560K for the CUNY chancellor,
- $480K for Chief Investment Officer Texas retirement system,
- $343K Florida state insurance director.
Leah Konen wrote a different piece over 6 months ago on pensions. She notes that, for instance, in Georgia, the state refuses to release identification on pension recipients (so much for transparency!)
Examples include:
- $200K/year for a retired Santa Clara County, CA fire chief. (Plus, double-dipping with more lucrative consulting gig after retirement) (5000-plus > $100K/year)
- $313K/year for some state of Georgia retiree (1100 > $100K/year)
- $147K/year for Atlantic City, NJ fire chief (plus, some 160 lucky retiring public safety officials won $13.7M in unused sick pay! Um, Gov. Christie?)
- nearly $100K/year to the late Congressman Rostenkowski after he was convicted in 1996 of embezzlement charges
- $232K/year for former vice chancellor of UMass medical school
- $119K/year for California county pest control administrator
- $191K/year for NY power authority executive
- $297K/year for California superintendent/teacher
Rick Santorum continued his strong showing in the Midwest taking the Kansas caucus, which was expected given earlier success in adjacent Iowa and Missouri. This blog is not a friend of Santorum for a number of reasons I discussed in my popular Valentine's Day post. But to free-market conservatives like myself, Rick Santorum's opposition to NAFTA and support for protectionist tariffs against foreign steel imports are unforgivable, and he and Specter grabbed all the money they could in federal earmarks, hardly fiscal conservatives.
Romney finalized his Wyoming win and various American territories to up the WSJ's unofficial delegate count to 454, more than the rest of the field put together, the second tier led by Santorum's 217. Romney is holding steady at +13 over Santorum in the Gallup tracking poll. Romney's next test is Tuesday, with primaries in Alabama and Mississippi (plus Hawaii and American Samoa caucuses). I have not read any reports from these states so I cannot relate to the Romney campaign strategy, but I do believe Romney has a strong possibility (note that I did not say PROBABILITY) of sweeping all 4. I have seen one poll in Alabama with Romney carrying a 9-point lead and another in Mississippi with an 8-point lead. (I should note that other Alabama surveys show almost a 3-way tie.) I'm sure the Romney campaign remembers the last week of the South Carolina campaign where Romney had a strong lead which collapsed. Wins in both states, which is definitely doable, would largely put to rest talking points about Romney's appeal in the Deep South. If I was running the Romney campaign, I would be pushing the electability argument like crazy, especially after Rasmussen's poll released today stressing a comparable lead (to Gallup) of a dozen-point lead over Santorum--and a 5-point lead over Obama, Romney's strongest lead over Obama I can recall for several weeks.
A strong performance Tuesday (with over 100 delegates at stake) puts Romney in a strong position. He would then be close to the halfway point of the delegates he needs for the nomination and boost his chances to take Illinois, where he currently has a lead. He already has more delegates than the other 3 candidates combined, and he has superior organization in the upcoming states. I expect Romney will probably lose a few primaries or caucuses (like Missouri) until the end of April, but all he needs to do is get his fair share of delegates. Santorum hopes to get Gingrich to bow out, but Gingrich has already been on the record saying he intends to pursue the race at least through Texas.
Now if I was in the Santorum campaign, there's an old saying: be careful of what you wish for: you just may get it. It's a lot easier for Romney to combat one opponent than two, the Romney campaign has probably held back some of their most effective material to use against him, the Romney campaign is better funded and organized, and Santorum is behind and running out of friendly real estate. There is no question that Santorum would be a weaker candidate: he's the embodiment of a third Bush term: a Big Spending, Big Defense social conservative whose gaffes and record turns off the very moderate and independent voters needed to defeat a personally popular but abysmal President.
Santorum will point out that he runs close to Obama and almost as well as Romney. I agree the polls say that, but you have to look at the context of the polls: Obama currently has poor approval ratings, but an improving economy works against the GOP. Romney can play the experienced administrator/Washington outsider campaign that Santorum can't: he can run against the Congress in the way that Obama can't.
It's Sad: A Cartoon Understands Gas Prices
Better Than Bill O'Reilly...
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Paul McCartney & Wings, "Coming Up". Technically, this is from a McCartney solo album just before the Wings disbanded, but it's included on some Internet Wings discographies.
