Showing posts with label government madness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government madness. Show all posts

Monday, July 13, 2020

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

We are being ruled by deranged technocrats...

Blatant official racial discrimination: County orders white people to wear masks in public, exempts 'persons of color'


Madness is in the air, with mobs terrifying guilt-ridden government officials, corporate leaders, educators, and the heads of all our significant institutions into violating previously sacred principles in an effort to prove their wokeness.  The Constitution and basic concepts of justice are out the window, and we face a grim new normal in which "getting whitey" becomes acceptable behavior from governments.
How else to explain this "Face Covering Directive" from the "Health & Human Services" mandarins of Lincoln County, Oregon, signed by Rebecca Austen, Lincoln County Public Health administrator, and Dr. David Long, Lincoln County Health Officer?
The relevant portions read:
General directive: All individuals in Lincoln County are required to wear face coverings during any indoor public setting or outdoor public location where a person will be in within six feet of another individual, who does not share the same household.
And the exceptions allowed:
·      Persons with health/medical conditions that preclude or are exacerbated by wearing a face covering.
·      Children under the age of 12. Children over the age of 2 but under the age of 12 are encouraged to wear face coverings but not required to do so.
·      Persons with disabilities that prevents them from using the face covering as described in this Directive.  These persons must be reasonably accommodated to allow them access to goods and services.
·      People of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling and harassment due to wearing face coverings in public. [emphasis added]
My understanding of the expression "people of color" is that it includes everyone who is not Caucasian.  (This expression is offensive to me because it implies that as a Caucasian, I have no color — am I transparent?)  If this is the correct interpretation, the order is obviously in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
There are no enforcement provisions attached to the directive, and it states that it is intended to be voluntary:
'No person shall intimidate or harass people who do not comply. This Directive is intended to induce voluntary compliance and compliment education and encouragement of use of face coverings to protect ourselves and our community.'   
That probably exempts the directive from litigation, which makes it all the more insidious, for it establishes a precedent of official blatant racial discrimination with no recourse.
The bulwarks that protect our civil rights are being eroded by the day.
Lincoln County is a coastal enclave with a population of around 50,000, whose county seat is Newport.  According to the 2010 Census, the population there was 87.7% white and 0.4% black.  The largest racial minorities were, in order, two or more races (3.7%), American Indian or Alaska Native (3.5%), and two or more races (3.4%).  I am unclear if the two or more races people are exempt, but the "one drop rule" popular in the Jim Crow South may well be coming back into use, this time to discriminate against Caucasians.
The ugliness of the architecture (find the human spirit in it, I challenge you) of the Lincoln County Courthouse reflects the ugliness of the bureaucrats inhabiting it:  

Sunday, December 22, 2019

Government at all levels knows only to throw money at any problem



revious

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Beware of government greed

A Michigan Man Underpaid His Property Taxes By $8.41. The County Seized His Property, Sold It—and Kept the Profits.

A state law allows counties to effectively steal homes over unpaid taxes and keep the excess revenue for their own budgets.

| 

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Kids are just collateral damage to the great social justice war

Hey, Mr. Mayor: Please don’t make me send my son to a rotten school



Hundreds of Queens parents have been phoning Mayor Bill de Blasio, asking him to provide classroom space for a Success Academy middle school — because without it, our kids won’t be able to continue the high-quality charter school education we chose for them.
Hizzoner doesn’t take our calls, and neither does anyone on his staff. They transfer us to 311 as soon as they learn why we are calling. They don’t even take down our information. It’s pretty clear that we aren’t a priority. The message City Hall and Gracie Mansion is telegraphing to us: Your voices don’t matter.
Success Academy first made a request for a middle school location in January 2017. The charter network provided a list of underutilized buildings — five different buildings with 475 to 700 empty seats — and showed future enrollment projections. With four Success elementary schools feeding into the one existing Success middle school in Queens, it was clear there wouldn’t be space for all our kids as more graduated from elementary school.
At first, the city told us there was space, but we would have to wait a year, until 2019. But now it’s 2019, there’s been no response on a location and the mayor is stonewalling. That isn’t a solution — it is an insult.
As a community that includes working-class families from Far Rockaway, Rosedale, Springfield Gardens and South Jamaica, we want what is best for our kids. Most of us have experience with the traditional schools in our neighborhoods, and it hasn’t been positive.
There are only two middle schools out of 55 in southeast Queens, where at least 80% of students are on grade level in both English and math. At Success, more than 96% of our children are on grade level in math, and 88% in reading. We want to build on their achievements — not watch them leave Success and regress.
The mayor and chancellor have campaigned for months to lower admission requirements for eight specialized high schools, because, they believe, it will allow more black and Latino students to reach for “excellence and equity for all.”
But when almost 2,000 children of color in southeast Queens — who are excelling in math and science and reading, who are on a path to a better future and the very excellence and equity the mayor extols — when those kids need a few hundred seats, a couple dozen classrooms, to continue their education, then de Blasio can’t be bothered to even have a staffer take our calls.
The mayor’s attitude is particularly disturbing in light of his recent intervention on behalf of PS 150. The mayor valiantly came to the rescue of this small school of mostly white students in TriBeCa this past December. Through his benevolent arbitration, the 200 children at PS 150 were allowed to stay in their building, rather than having to temporarily co-locate in a different building until construction of their new school was complete.
While our Queens families have to contemplate sending their children to underperforming district schools, the families in TriBeCa were going to be burdened with an additional 20 minutes added to their commute. But the mayor stepped in and saved PS 150 families — something he refuses to do for Queens working-class families of color.
By his own account, as soon as the mayor heard about PS 150’s problem, he met with Chancellor Richard Carranza and said, “We’ve got to figure this out, there’s got to be a way to save this school.” Within a few weeks, the mayor solved the problem and held a celebratory news conference, proclaiming “when there’s accountability, it makes a difference.”
If only the mayor felt accountable to working-class families in Queens.
The mayor has the power to help change the fate of these Queens students, but he is putting anti-charter politics ahead of kids. No schools have to be closed, no miracles have to be worked. It is simply a matter of sharing space, something that New York school children have done for more than a century.
“Sharing” — it is a concept most parents teach our children. The mayor has proposed that America’s wealthiest individuals share their wealth, but as the landlord of NYC’s public-school buildings, he won’t allow our children in charters to share space with their district peers.
AnnDena McCleary is a Success Academy parent. She lives in South Jamaica, Queens, with her son.

Saturday, August 3, 2019

It might be a cold Christmas in Sweden...

Jesper Starn

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

But, women on the soccer team get 13% of revenue and men 9%. Why the blazes does the Federal government subsidize soccer?



The soccer salary debate intensifies


Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) authored a bill that would pull federal funding for a future World Cup set to be played in the United States, unless the women's national team starts getting paid the same amount as the men's team, according to BuzzFeed News.

The bill would pull federal funding from the 2026 men's World Cup that is used to support host cities and the sport's governing bodies involved in the tournament.

Why did he author the bill?

Manchin cited public outcry, as well as a letter he received from the West Virginia University women's soccer coach.
"Women deserve to be paid equitably for their work," Manchin wrote on Twitter. "While @USWNT continues to dominate on the world stage & generate tremendous revenue for @ussoccer, the women make only a fraction of what the men's national team is paid. It's plain wrong, and it's time to #PayTheWomen."
WVU women's coach Nikki Izzo-Brown voiced concerns to Manchin about whether her players would have the same earnings potential as men.


"I believe first hand, it is wrong for the U.S. Soccer women to be paid and valued less for their work because of gender," Izzy-Brown wrote.

What's this pay controversy?

There are arguments being made both that the women's team is underpaid based on its performance, and that the team is actually overpaid based on the amount of revenue the sport of women's soccer generates.
Megan McArdle breaks it down in a Washington Post column:
And now that the United States has again won the Women's World Cup, their cause has turned into a national obsession, as Americans abruptly noticed that the pool of prize money available to their champions was less than 10 percent of what FIFA, soccer's world governing body, offers the men. Members of the U.S. women's team are also suing U.S. Soccer, their employer, for paying them less than the men's team.
The pay gap is an outrage, outraged pundits proclaimed. Others fired back that the men's World Cup last year generated $6 billion, of which the participants split $400 million, or about 7 percent of the total revenue. The women's World Cup is expected to generate $131 million, of which the women's teams are splitting $30 million, or about 23 percent of the overall revenue. Arguably, compared to the men, the women were actually grossly overpaid.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

The epidemic of budgetary dishonesty


Gov. J.B. Pritzker says Illinois’ budget is balanced ”for the first time in decades.” That’s the claim he made upon signing Illinois’ $40 billion budget for 2020. Pritzker’s claim is simply not true. According to the state’s own actuarial calculations, his budget is billions in the red.
A big reason for the unbalanced budget comes from how politicians account for the state’s retirement debts versus how financial professionals do. There’s often a gap of several billion dollars between the two. Hiding that gap has allowed Illinois pols to perpetuate the myth of balanced budgets for decades.
Take Pritzker’s 2020 budget. The state’s pension funding laws, set up nearly 25 years ago by the General Assembly and then-Gov. Jim Edgar, require the state to pay $9 billion* to Illinois’ five state-run pensions in 2020. “We are paying the full payment that is required under the ramp that was put in place in 1995, the statutory required payment,” Pritzker said when he signed the budget.
But what Pritzker ignores is the amount the state’s own actuaries say is required to properly fund Illinois’ pensions in 2020, an amount that exceeds $13 billion. That’s a total shortfall of $4 billion.
And it’s not just pension payments that are being shorted. It’s also payments for state-worker retiree health insurance that are grossly underpaid.
State actuaries calculate the required payments for those benefits at about $4 billion annually, yet the state has only paid around $1 billion yearly in recent years. That’s billions more in shortfalls that Pritzker’s budget ignores.
Defenders of the “balanced-budget” claim will want to paint the above as a matter of semantics. But the billions in shortfalls are not only a matter of accounting. When the state continues to grow its pension promises faster than it can pay for them – and then doesn’t pay enough into its state-worker retirement plans – it doesn’t balance the budget. The state’s debts jump as a result. Illinois’ skyrocketing pension and retiree health insurance debts are the evidence of that.

Illinois not even “treading water”

Despite the fact that Pritzker’s payment to pensions consumes nearly a quarter of the current budget – no other state is in such dire straits – it still won’t stop the state’s pension debts from growing. That’s how sick Illinois’ finances are.
Illinois’ Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability shows that despite a $9.2 billion* contribution into pensions in 2020, the state’s unfunded liabilities will still increase by $2.4 billion to $139 billion. Illinois is not unlike the financial deadbeat that never pays the minimum payment on his credit card. As a result, its debts just grow.
To just “tread water” – to keep Illinois’ debt flat from one year to the next – the state payment in 2020 should be $2.4 billion higher, or over $11 billion in total.
That tread water amount, however, does nothing to reduce Illinois’ pension debts. Even more, it’s based on the state’s actuarial assumptions actually panning out. If they don’t, then the state’s pension debts will be even bigger.

Statutory payment

If Pritzker and team want to make claims of “balanced” budgets, they’ll have to make lots of changes going forward.
For starters, they’ll need to dump the Edgar ramp, which pushes the repayment of pension debts far into the future, requires just 90 percent funding levels by 2045, and assumes overly optimistic investment rates.
In its place, they’ll have to accept the stricter standards adopted by the state actuaries (see Exhibit 2 for an example of TRS’ standard). Their required payments are larger to ensure the pension shortfalls get paid down sooner. They pursue 100 percent funding targets and accelerate the repayment of debts (TRS’ actuaries target 2035, SERS targets 2040 and SURS targets 2045). And how they account for individual pensions is more conservative (entry age normal vs. projected unit cost). All that results in required payments that are $4 billion larger than the state’s statutory requirements.
But politicians should go even further. While the actuaries still depend on ramps, other financial groups demand the use of less rosy investment rate assumptions and flat debt repayment schedules (level dollar) to determine yearly state contributions.
Wirepoints has covered JP Morgan’s estimates of Illinois’ required payments and ran our own as well, shown below. Those more responsible assumptions would require the state to put even more money into the pension plans.

Irresponsible

Politicians on both sides of the aisle can pat themselves on the back all they want for passing a budget. But the truth is they’ve just made Illinois’ debt crisis even worse.
They’re not paying what they should, nor have they passed a single structural reform that would help lower the annual cost of retirements. (In fact, they’ve done the opposite by reboosting pension spiking for teachers.)
Illinois fiscal reality won’t change until the state is more honest about its debts and it reduces those debts through structural reforms.
*The state’s contribution includes $8 billion in money from the state’s general fund budget and an additional $1 billion from other special funds.
Read more about how politicians mislead Illinoisans about the impact of retirements on the budget:
Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 2.