Here's a slew of other governmental over-involvement and cronyism that you may or may not have caught...what, with all the hullabaloo about some accusation from decades ago...
DoJ sues South Carolina
Fox reports:
"The federal government filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to stop implementation of South Carolina's tough new immigration law, arguing that the legislation that requires law officers to check suspects' immigration status is unconstitutional."
I'll tell you what's unconstitutional, NOT doing something about it!
Katie Pavlich commented on this report with an interesting Townhall article of her own questioning "Which state is getting sued by the Obama Justice Department now?"
Since Arizona passed SB 1070, an anti-illegal immigration law that allows local law enforcement officers to inquire about legal status after a crime has been committed, in April 2010, at least 30 other states have followed with similar legislation to address their own illegal immigration problems. This is no surprise considering illegal immigration costs states already drowning in debt millions, if not billions of dollars per year in the areas of education, healthcare and public services. Regardless, the Obama Justice Department has made every effort to stop states from dealing with illegal immigration on their own and has filed lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama and now South Carolina.
The bottom line is, laws combating illegal immigration at the state level work. Take SB 1070 for example. Since the legislation was passed, even with the most crucial enforcement measures of the bill being put on hold by a federal judge, crime in Phoenix is at a 30-year low, down from being the number two (behind Mexico city) kidnapping capitol of the world just two years ago. Unnecessary education spending has also significantly dropped in the Grand Canyon State.
Wow, there's some stats that haven't really made it out there...probably due to some new high-tech lynching or something...here's some more...
Public school teachers make more than private sector workers
That was the headline from an informative Washington Examiner report, with a preface spot on:
We can already hear the anguished, angry protests of the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers. But our headline captures the essence of an important new study being released today by Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis and American Enterprise Institute's Andrew Biggs. Richwine and Biggs found that when public school teachers and private sector workers are compared objectively on the basis of cognitive skills -- rather than years of service or educational attainment -- the educators enjoy higher compensation -- contrary to the claims of union officials in public debate and in negotiations with school boards.
This is seen most dramatically when workers switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs. Such a move typically results in a wage increase of approximately nine percent. "Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by roughly 3 percent. This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid," Richwine and Biggs said.
The biggest factor in the compensation advantage enjoyed by public school teachers is not wages, however, but rather fringe benefits, which typically are substantially more generous than those paid to private sector workers in cognitively comparable positions. Public school teacher pension programs routinely offer higher benefits, thanks to the traditional calculation that lower salaries would be partially offset by more generous retirement packages. Also significant here is the provision by public school pension programs of paid or low-cost health insurance programs for retirees. Richwine and Biggs found the presence of retiree health benefits adds about 10 percent to the total value of public teacher compensation. As much as another 8.6 percent is added when the value of public school teacher job security is added to the comparison.
Huh, they don't tell ya that, do they? Rush picked up on this story and elaborated like only El Rushbo can, wrapping it up in all the current events...
You know, yesterday I got off on a rant about it being time that we went after the left's base. They're going after ours as racist and sexists and we are the 1%, and we're the ones not paying our fair share and all of that; and we have to have our taxes increased. We've gotta "do more," when in fact their base make up the nation's losers! Way too many people who vote Democrat are in the loser class in this country, and they're out there with their hands out. They're demanding this and they're demanding that just because they can -- and no matter what they're given, they never say thank you. They just continue to complain that it's not enough; and they continue to claim that others who are providing what they get still aren't paying their fair share; and all of this is encouraged by the Democrats. But we, we are what?
We're supposed to thank all of these public sector teachers. We're supposed to thank these people for the hard work they're doing educating our students -- and we're expected to say that we wish they were paid more. We are expected to say that they are being taken advantage of by the rich, evil 1% who aren't paying their fair share. That's the accepted narrative: "Teachers, principals, administrators rebuke are underpaid, underappreciated; we don't say thanks enough for all the hard work they do. Instead we're overpaying athletes and bankers and everybody else." When in fact the takers and losers that make up the Democrat Party base never say thanks for anything. All they ever say is, "It's not enough," and that's what these guys, Richwine and Biggs, have done at AEI and Heritage. They have studied and they have examined who really is underpaid and who isn't...
Oh, believe it or not, there was even bigger news than a hand gesture mistaken for a sexual innuendo...
Fannie and Freddie Execs take millions in bonuses
Now, I don't want to be mistaken for one of those 'damn the rich' class warfare types. I bring this one up specifically because Big Government found it necessary to reclaim these troubled mortgage agencies and bail them out with taxpayer funds. That's a lot different from building wealth well deserved. NewsMax explains:
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, approved $12.79 million of bonuses for 10 executives from the two government-sponsored agencies after they met modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages at risk of foreclosure, Politico reports.
Oh, look, our favorite publication. The piece continues...
Given that there have been very few modifications, critics can be forgiven for questioning why the generous bonuses were doled out. They come only two years after the agencies received $170 billion in taxpayer aid. The housing finance agency pledged at that time that it would curb executive pay after the humongous compensation offered to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and others.
Ed Haldeman, who announced last week that he is quitting as Freddie Mac’s CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last year — and garnered a $2.3 million bonus. Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams received a $2.37 million bonus.
The top five executives at Freddie bagged $6.46 million in bonuses last year, and a second installment has yet to be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Williams and the four other top officials at Fannie snagged $6.33 million in bonuses, primarily for providing “liquidity, stability and affordability” to the national market. That’s not exactly setting the bar high.
Two years...yeah, that's a long enough draught (psshhh!) for folks not to scrutinize anymore, right? Must be nice workin' for the government, especially in Mr. Haldeman's case! This kind of stuff steps right over the line of crony capitalism, that is to say, when a now public entity continues to run as if it were a private corporation using taxpayer money to fund its endeavors, including benefits. And if that wasn't enough...
Corzine tanks MF Global
Once a loser, always a loser? Well, maybe not, but in former NJ Gov. Jon Corzine's case, things certainly aren't looking so bright. Business Insider elegantly sets the stage for this story:
Well, this one's right up there with the most spectacular CEO disasters ever.
Yesterday, 18 months after Jon Corzine took over the helm of MF Global with the goal of building it into a real investment bank, he flew the company into a mountain.
Why? Because part of becoming a real investment bank, apparently, is betting the company. Jon Corzine bellied up to the global market tables, bet MF Global, and lost.
Wait, the explanation of how he managed this gives even more insight into what kind of Madoff-like crook (or average statist Democrat politician, take your pick) the former governor is...
Specifically, the former head of Goldman Sachs and governor of New Jersey authorized his traders to scarf up $6 billion in bonds issued by Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, and Ireland. The bet, presumably, was that the powers-that-be in Europe would bail out these and other bondholders to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar, because in our global bailout spree, that's what powers-that-be do.
Moron! I don't even know if Madoff could have been so bold.
So, there ya go.
See...these, and actually several more that I didn't cover, were reported on throughout the first few days of this week, if the media would have cared to divert from their current witch-hunt long enough to elaborate on these serious stories. Oh well...it's just the curl of the burl.
