This'n'That; January 4th[NY Budget;reid;Burris]

New York Ain't The Only One New York ranks 6th in the budget shortfall "race." As a percentage of the whole budget, it's shortfall will come in at 9.8% [$5.5Bln]. The states with greater shortfalls are Ca [22%], Az [19.9%], Fl [19.9%], Nv [16%] and RI [13.1%] When considering the dollar amount, NY [$5.5Bln] comes in second only to Ca [$22.2Bln]. There are six states that don't have, nor are projecting state budget shortfalls. They are: Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. It's particularly telling to note that none of the six states [with the possible exception of Texas] has large politicially and financially influential urban centers; none of them are among the thirteen original states. Nope, but thanks for askin'.....paterson hasn't called me yet for my suggestions. When he does call, I'm gonna suggest the following moves: ***10% ACROSS-THE-BOARD spending cuts; no program should be immune!! *** Increase health insurance costs of state employees by 10% each year until they reach 30%. ***Cancel the following perquisites for the state's legislators and employees: free use of state-owned housing, free gas, free use of state-owned vehicles. ***Each elected/ appointed official take a 10% pay cut[Legislators=$79,500/yr]. ***Change state pension fund from a defined benefit [DB] plan to a defined contribution [DC] plan [this would save millions; potentially billions]. New York State and its local governments provide their employees with constitutionally guaranteed pensions based on workers' peak salaries and career longevity. This defined benefit (DB) system requires government employers to contribute annually to retirement funds to cover future pension payments. Earnings during bull markets reduce employer contributions, while losses during bear markets can force governments to drastically increase contributions. Since bear markets usually coincide with recessions, DB pension plans force governments to spend more when they are least able to afford it. The financial complexity of the DB system has made it all too easy for elected officials to ignore or misrepresent the true costs of pension benefit increases for government workers. Studies show how greater fairness for New York taxpayers and competitive retirement benefits for government employees can be achieved by switching to the savings-based defined contribution (DC) model used by the vast majority of private companies. A DC plan guarantees that a set amount of money will be put aside for retirement out of every employee's paycheck, while making the ultimate retirement income dependent on how much is saved and on returns from investment over the employee's working life. In a DC retirement system, taxpayers would no longer bear all the financial risks associated with providing guaranteed pension benefits. Public pension costs for the first time would become both predictable and easily understandable, and the real costs of proposed benefit increases would be completely transparent. Use this address for any budget suggestions you may have for paterson: http://161.11.121.121/govemail Harry Reid's Balls Ya gotta admit harry reid, the less than reputable senator from Nevada, of "questionable, highly profitable land deals" fame, certainly seems to have testicles of a malleable, acoustic, non-ferris metal-commonly known as brass. With his usual combination of bluster, blather and lack of cognitive thought, reid is saying that the Senate will not seat Roland Burris, recently appointed by Gov Soon-to-be-in-jailovich, to fulfill obama's senate term. An Illinois court will eventually decide if their governor is guilty of corruption. But on at least this one issue he is more law-abiding than Majority Leader harry reid and fellow Democrats. Mr. Soon-to-be-in-jailovich appointed Mr. Burris to represent Illinois on Tuesday. As the Governor said in his announcement, the Illinois public also deserves its full measure of representation in Washington. Mr. Burris is a former state attorney general who is untainted by the charges against Mr. Soon-to-br-in-jailovich. When the legislature failed to act on legislation to require the replacement be selected by special election, Mr. Soon-to-be-in-jailovich saw his opening to name Mr. Burris. Meanwhile, mr. reid and Washington Democrats are refusing to seat Mr. Burris, never mind their lack of authority to do so. As an initial matter, they're hiding behind the Illinois secretary of state, who is refusing to certify the appointment. But Mr. Burris has asked a court to order the secretary of state to carry out what under state law would typically be a nondiscretionary duty. In any event, Beltway Democrats can't inject themselves into what is clearly a matter of Illinois law. The legal precedent here is the Supreme Court's 7-1 decision in Powell v. McCormack in 1969. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell had been accused of corruption but was nonetheless re-elected in 1966. House Democrats declined to seat him, Powell sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in denying him his seat. Congress could have expelled Powell with a two-thirds vote, as stipulated in the Constitution, but it couldn't deny him the seat in the first instance. While the Constitution says the Senate can determine its own membership, the Court in Powell interpreted Article I, Section 5 to say that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a "qualification" saying that a Senator must not have been appointed by an embarrassing Illinois Governor. mr. reid is also attempting the dodge of referring the matter to the Senate Rules Committee, which is run by Democrats, but the Powell precedent ought to be clear even to political lawyers. If mr. reid wants to banish Mr. Burris, he must first seat him and then persuade two-thirds of the Senate to expel him. Needless to say, the last thing mr. reid wants to do is create turmoil in his party by expelling an African-American Democrat whose only offense has been to accept an appointment to serve. But if mr. reid does go that route, we'd suggest worthier expulsion possibilities, such as Connecticut's chris dodd, who received sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial while sitting on the Banking Committee. Republicans want Illinois to hold a special election for the vacant seat, and we recommended that ourselves (as did Mr. obama) when the Blagojevich tapes first became public. But now that Mr. Burris has been appointed, mr. reid can't legally deny him his seat. If this is the way Democrats are going to use their new monopoly on Beltway power even against a member of their own party, we're in for an ugly couple of years. I'm gonna start a rumor right here, right now!! I'm saying that mr reid has been invited to reside and legislate from the State of Illinois. He has been selected due to his crooked land deals and his proclivity for not understanding written law; and when he does, to ignore it. He'll fit right in with Chicago and Illinois "politics as usual!!" Til Nex'Time.........